National Agricultural Statistics Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
National Institutes of Health
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway 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 (USCIS), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Final rule; delay of effective date; request for comments.
On January 8, 2021, DHS published a final rule,
As of February 8, 2021, the effective date of the final rule published January 8, 2021, at 86 FR 1676, is delayed to December 31, 2021. DHS is accepting public comments on this delay until March 10, 2021.
You may submit comments on the entirety of this final rule package, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2020-0019, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Charles L. Nimick, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone 240-721-3000 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY-TDD).
DHS invites all interested parties to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, comments, and arguments on all aspects of this final rule. DHS also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this final rule. Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to DHS in implementing these changes will: reference a specific portion of the final rule; explain the reason for any recommended change; and include data, information, or authority that supports such a recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than those listed in the
On January 8, 2021, DHS published the H-1B Selection Final Rule,
The H-1B Selection Final Rule is currently scheduled to go into effect on March 9, 2021. As discussed in greater detail below, after further consideration, USCIS has determined that the final rule's 60-day effective date does not afford USCIS sufficient time between the publication of the rule on January 8, 2021, and March 9, 2021, to complete the development and thoroughly test the modifications needed in the H-1B registration system to sufficiently minimize technical risks that result from a compressed testing schedule, as well as to amend policies and train staff to ensure the effective and orderly administration of the cap under the H-1B Selection Final Rule. By this action, DHS is delaying the H-1B Selection Final Rule until December 31, 2021, and is applying the regulations currently in place (random selection) to the initial registration period, and, most likely, any subsequent registration period for the FY 2022 registration process.
DHS expects that delaying the rule to December 31, 2021, will provide USCIS sufficient time to develop, thoroughly test, and implement the modifications to the registration system and selection process and give stakeholders sufficient time to adjust to new procedures arising from the new rule. The publication of the final rule on January 8, 2021, finalized a new selection process requiring, from a technical standpoint, that a new algorithm be developed, thoroughly tested, and implemented in the form of an electronic registration tool. The publication date of the final rule only affords six weeks of development time, and less than two weeks to complete internal end-to-end testing and external performance testing with DHS OneNet, the DHS network. The selection logic is a fundamental part of the registration tool, and the H-1B Selection Final Rule created more complexity in the logic calculation by adding several versions of lotteries that must be developed, thoroughly tested and implemented. This additional complexity essentially requires a complete rebuilding of the registration tool that was developed for the FY 2021 selection process.
As indicated below, DHS wants to ensure the orderly and efficient administration of the H-1B numerical allocations and wants to avoid disruption to the regulated public by affording itself sufficient time to fully modify and thoroughly test the changes to the H-1B registration system, minimize technical risks that result from a compressed testing schedule, and provide the regulated public enough time to become familiar with those changes to facilitate full compliance with the new regulatory requirements.
While DHS considered other alternatives, including a shorter term delay (such as a delay of 60 days, or a delay to the start of the next fiscal year, October 1, 2021), DHS believes that a longer delay is needed to avoid the confusion and disparate treatment of registrants that would result if a new rule took effect during the initial registration period, or a subsequent registration and selection period, for the FY 2022 numerical allocations, particularly if USCIS needs to open a subsequent registration period later this year to ensure full utilization of the FY 2022 numerical allocations. DHS cannot predict, with full certainty, the demand for H-1B visas for FY 2022 given the current state of the U.S. economy, the continued COVID-19 public health emergency, and efforts to address it in the United States and abroad. Thus, DHS cannot predict whether it will be necessary to continue to accept registrations after the initial registration period for the FY 2022 numerical allocations closes, or whether USCIS will need to reopen the H-1B registration period later in the 2021 calendar year to generate the number of H-1B cap petitions projected as needed to reach the FY 2022 numerical allocations. Should USCIS need to open a subsequent registration period and the H-1B Selection Final Rule is in effect at that time, that would mean that H-1B registrations for the same fiscal year would be selected under two different standards, thus causing confusion and disparate treatment among H-1B registrants for FY 2022. Further, if USCIS needed to select additional registrations after the H-1B Selection Final Rule takes effect, but must continue to select from among those submitted before the H-1B Selection Final Rule takes effect (
After determining that there is not adequate time for USCIS to complete the development and thoroughly test the modifications to the H-1B registration system, train staff, and conduct outreach on the H-1B Selection Final Rule, DHS also considered an alternative to delaying the H-1B Selection Final Rule,
Furthermore, because the selection process would be dependent on wage level, the scope of work for contractor staff would require not only initial review of petitions for completeness and correct filing fees, but also to identify the wage levels that would be used to rank them for purposes of the selection process. Petitions that do not contain required wage information would have to be rejected. Because the scope of intake work would significantly expand, the time to complete intake would be lengthened.
Moreover, reverting to a paper-based selection process would re-introduce additional uncertainties into the H-1B selection process that the electronic registration process eliminated. For example, in order to conduct the paper-based selection process, USCIS would likely have to suspend premium processing of H-1B petitions which would further delay the processing of petitions.
The aforementioned problems are significantly aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, to ensure sufficient physical distancing of staff on premises, USCIS has already made plans to evenly distribute the H-1B petition adjudication workload for FY 2022 between four Service Centers: California Service Center, Nebraska Service Center, Texas Service Center, and Vermont Service Center. If USCIS were to suspend the electronic registration process in order to implement the H-1B Selection Rule to conduct the FY 2022 selection process, USCIS would require a significant amount of time to staff up and train staff at the Nebraska and Texas Service Centers because those Service Centers had never previously conducted petition-based intake and selection. Additionally, because USCIS has already made plans to evenly distribute the H-1B petition adjudication workload for FY 2022 between four Service Centers, current budget and planning for the California Service Center and Vermont Service Center does not provide enough resources required for those two centers to handle the entire workload and to quickly pivot to a petition-based filing system.
Finally, the petition-based process would require time for the public to pivot and prepare H-1B petitions, including obtain certified Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) for submission during the first week of April. This change could impact DOL operations because a far larger number of LCAs than anticipated with the registration-based system would be filed in a compressed time period, and DOL would need to ensure they are processed in accordance with the statutory and regulatory processing timeframe of 7 working days. 20 CFR 655.730(b). This is additional cost for the public to prepare and submit petitions when they do not have notice as to whether they are or will be selected. For these several reasons, USCIS determined that reverting to a paper-based selection process in order to implement the H-1B Selection Final Rule during FY 2022 was not a viable alternative.
Therefore, to ensure USCIS will not be incapable of administering the H-1B cap selection process and both avoid concerns associated with reverting to a paper-based selection process, as well as applying two separate regulatory schemes to the H-1B selection process, DHS believes that delaying the effective date of the H-1B Selection Final Rule until December 31, 2021, will provide sufficient time to complete the selection process for the FY 2022 numerical allocations, thus avoiding unnecessary confusion and possible inequitable results as well as more time for USCIS to modify and test its systems, train staff, and conduct public outreach. During the period of the delayed effective date, while DHS works through the issues associated with implementation, DHS leadership will also evaluate the January 8th rule and its associated policies, as is typical of agencies at the beginning of a new Administration.
Given the longer delay, USCIS expects that it will select from among all of the registrations properly submitted toward the FY 2022 H-1B numerical allocations based on the current (random selection) regulations that will be in effect when USCIS first begins accepting registrations or petitions toward the FY 2022 numerical allocations.
DHS also believes that December 31, 2021, while most likely to extend beyond when USCIS has determined that it has received enough petitions projected as needed to reach the FY 2022 numerical allocations, also balances the competing need to ensure that the regulated public has sufficient advance notice and certainty as to the rules that will be in effect for the FY 2023 H-1B numerical allocations.
This rule is being issued without prior notice and opportunity to comment and with an immediate effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d). The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551
In addition, DHS recognizes that commenters responding to the H-1B Selection Notice of Proposed Rulemaking requested that DHS delay implementation of the H-1B Selection Final Rule because of insufficient time for them to adapt to a new regulatory regime. Commenters indicated that immediate implementation would impose an unreasonable burden on prospective petitioners and beneficiaries because changes so close to the beginning of that cap season would adversely impact U.S. employers and would create uncertainty and confusion. Multiple commenters said companies already have made hiring decisions based on the existing registration system, so delaying implementation until the FY 2023 cap filing season (set to begin in March 2022) would give the regulated community time to adjust. Some commenters disagreed, stating that there was sufficient time for DHS, employers, and others to adjust to the changes.
Upon further consideration of these comments, in addition to concerns that USCIS lacks adequate time to make and thoroughly test system modifications, revise internal procedures, train staff, and offer training to the regulated public, and concerns that reverting to a paper-based selection process also would have adverse effects on the regulated public and the agency, DHS believes that providing the regulated public with only 60 days (with a current effective date of March 9, 2021) to adapt to new regulatory requirements and modifications of the H-1B registration system before the FY 2022 H-1B cap registration season would cause confusion and very likely would significantly disrupt the orderly administration of the H-1B cap. This is particularly so since, as described above, USCIS believes it can neither stand-up, thoroughly test, and therefore deploy the H-1B registration system changes and thus would not be able to conduct outreach on such changes to the regulated public in advance of implementation based on the current March 9, 2021 effective date, nor can it successfully revert to a paper-based petition selection process on this timeline. In addition, DHS believes that the possibility of having two different regulatory schemes apply to the same fiscal year would create significant confusion for the regulated public that would not have been reasonably foreseeable; the same is true for reverting to a paper-based petition selection process. Similarly, reverting to a paper-based petition process in order to implement the H-1B Selection Final Rule, with so little lead time to develop a process for sorting and selecting from among potentially two hundred thousand petitions, hiring temporary contract staff during the national health emergency to handle intake of the petitions, and train staff on how to conduct a new wage-based selection process in this context, as well as no lead time to offer outreach to the regulated public, would similarly disrupt the expectations of the regulated public, and adversely affect the ability of at least some petitioners to participate in the selection process for FY 2022. Therefore, DHS is delaying the effective date of the H-1B Selection Final Rule to December 31, 2021.
Current regulations at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(
Therefore, DHS is delaying the effective date of the H-1B Selection Final Rule to December 31, 2021, to better ensure that the H-1B Selection Final Rule will not take effect while USCIS is still administering the FY 2022 numerical allocation selection process. This delay and the application of the current regulations to the initial registration period for the FY 2022 numerical allocations will provide DHS with more time to modify and test the changes to the H-1B registration system that will be needed to implement wage-level-based selection, and to provide the regulated public with time to adapt to new procedures arising from the new legal requirements and system modifications.
DHS is aware that some prospective petitioners and beneficiaries already may have changed their behavior in reliance on the H-1B Selection Final Rule. However, given the short amount of time that has passed since this rule was published on January 8, 2021, DHS
Because it would be impracticable to provide for notice and comment and a delayed effective date in advance of the March 9, 2021, effective date, DHS is proceeding with this final rule. Accordingly, the effective date of the H-1B Selection Final Rule, FR Doc. 2021-00183, published on January 8, 2021, at 86 FR 1676, is delayed to December 31, 2021.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs, benefits, and transfers of available alternatives, and if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits, including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this rule is “economically significant” under E.O. 12866 and has reviewed this regulation.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121 (March 29, 1996), requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during the development of their rules. “Small entities” are small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required when a rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking. This final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking, as stated in the Administrative Procedure Act, section of the preamble.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of UMRA requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The inflation-adjusted value equivalent of $100 million in 1995 adjusted for inflation to 2019 levels by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) is approximately $168 million based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
Because the H-1B Selection Final Rule that is being delayed by this final rule may result in the expenditure of more than $100 million by the private sector annually, OIRA has determined that this rule may as well. However, neither the H-1B Selection Final Rule nor this rulemaking is a “Federal mandate” as defined for UMRA purposes. The cost of preparation of H-1B petitions (including required evidence) and the payment of H-1B nonimmigrant petition fees by petitioners or other private sector entities is, to the extent it could be termed an enforceable duty, one that arises from participation in a voluntary Federal program, petitioning for classification of the beneficiary as an H-1B nonimmigrant. This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II of UMRA, therefore, do not apply, and DHS has not prepared a statement under UMRA. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the UMRA.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determined that the H-1B Selection final rule was a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, also known as the “Congressional Review Act” (CRA), as enacted in section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, 868-874, and codified at 5 U.S.C. 801-808. Therefore, OIRA has determined that this rule should have a “major” rule designation because its practical impact is that it is delaying the implementation of a major rule to FY 2023. The CRA requires that major rules have a 60-day delayed effective date. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3). However, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 808(2), DHS is forgoing the 60-day delayed effective date for the reasons articulated in the Administrative Procedure Act section above. This final rule will take effect immediately upon publication. DHS has complied with the CRA's reporting requirements and has sent this final rule to Congress and to the Comptroller General as required by 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1).
This final rule would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, DHS has determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This final rule does not have “tribal implications” because it does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Accordingly, E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires no further agency action or analysis.
DHS analyzes actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act, Public Law 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321 through 4347 (NEPA), applies to them and, if so, what degree of analysis is required. DHS Directive 023-01 Rev. 01 (Directive) and Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01 Rev. 01, Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (Instruction Manual) establish the policies and procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.
The CEQ regulations allow federal agencies to establish, with CEQ review and concurrence, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) that experience has shown do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
As discussed in more detail throughout this final rule, DHS is issuing this final rule to delay the effective date and postpone the implementation of the H-1B Selection Final Rule. That rule is amending regulations governing the selection of registrations or petitions, as applicable, toward the annual H-1B numerical allocations based on the wage level that equals or exceeds the proffered wage based on occupational classification and area of intended employment.
Generally, DHS believes NEPA does not apply to a rule intended to change a discrete aspect of a visa program because any attempt to analyze its potential impacts would be largely, if not completely, speculative. The same applies to a rule delaying the effective date of such a rule that does not change the rule's substance, but only postpones its effective date, and consequently pushes out the date on which it will be implemented. This final rule does not alter the statutory limitations on the numbers of nonimmigrants who may be issued initial H-1B visas or granted initial H-1B nonimmigrant status, or those who consequently will be admitted into the United States as H-1B nonimmigrants, or those who will be allowed to change their status to H-1B, or will extend their stay in H-1B status. DHS does not believe, and cannot reasonably estimate whether, the delay in a rule that establishes a wage-level-based ranking approach to select H-1B registrations (or petitions in any year in which the registration requirement were suspended) that DHS is implementing will affect how many petitions will be filed for workers to be employed in specialty occupations or whether the regulatory amendments herein will result in an overall change in the number of H-1B petitions that ultimately will be approved, and the number of H-1B workers who will be employed in the United States in any FY. DHS has no reason to believe that delaying these amendments to H-1B regulations will change the environmental effect, if any, of the existing regulations. Therefore, DHS has determined that, even if NEPA applied to this action, this final rule clearly fits within categorical exclusion A3(d) in the Instruction Manual, which provides an exclusion for “promulgation of rules . . . that amend an existing regulation without changing its environmental effect.” This final rule only delays another final rule and will maintain the current human environment. This final rule is not a part of a larger action and presents no extraordinary circumstances creating the potential for significant environmental effects. Therefore, this action is categorically excluded and no further NEPA analysis is required.
DHS is delaying the implementation of all changes to the H-1B Registration Tool (OMB Control number 1615-0144) and Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) (OMB Control number 1615-0009), associated with the H-1B Selection Final Rule until December 31, 2021.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notification of petition for waiver and grant of an interim waiver; request for comments.
This notification announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver and interim waiver from Ningbo FOTILE Kitchen Ware Co. Ltd. (“FOTILE”), which seeks a waiver for specified dishwasher basic models from the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) test procedure used for determining the energy and water consumption of dishwashers. DOE also gives notification of an Interim Waiver Order that requires FOTILE to test and rate the specified dishwasher basic models in accordance with the alternate test procedure set forth in the Interim Waiver Order. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning FOTILE's petition and its suggested alternate test procedure so as to inform DOE's final decision on FOTILE's waiver request.
The Interim Waiver Order is effective on February 8, 2021. Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before March 10, 2021.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
•
•
•
No telefacsimilies (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see the
The docket web page can be found at
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email:
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email:
On October 15, 2020, FOTILE filed a petition for waiver and interim waiver from the test procedure for dishwashers set forth at Appendix C1.
DOE has reviewed FOTILE's application for an interim waiver and the alternate test procedure requested by FOTILE. DOE also reviewed manufacturer information available on-line, including the operation manual
DOE notes, however, that FOTILE's alternate test procedure specifies a test enclosure that differs from the installation instructions provided in the operation manual. Specifically, the alternate test procedure retains a requirement in Section 2.1 that the enclosure be brought into the closest contact with the appliance that the configuration of the dishwasher will allow. In the case of FOTILE's basic model, this would include close contact between the bottom of the enclosure and the underside of the in-sink dishwasher. Because the height of the product is 21
DOE is publishing FOTILE's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv).
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. Faxes will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 14, 2020, by Daniel R. Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that product (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the covered product complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for dishwashers is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C1, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Dishwashers” (“Appendix C1”).
Under 10 CFR 430.27, any interested person may submit a petition for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the performance of the product type in a manner representative of the energy consumption characteristics of the basic model. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2).
As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
The waiver process also provides that DOE may grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the underlying petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the underlying petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the
When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(2).
On October 15, 2020, FOTILE filed a petition for waiver and interim waiver from the test procedure for dishwashers set forth at Appendix C1.
FOTILE also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. DOE will grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2).
Based on the assertions in the petition, the installation and detergent placement characteristics of the subject basic models prevent testing of the basic models according to the prescribed test procedure absent an interim waiver.
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistency is important when making representations about the energy efficiency of covered products, including when demonstrating compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE may establish in a subsequent Decision and Order an alternate test procedure for the basic models addressed by the Interim Waiver Order.
FOTILE seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate specific dishwasher basic models. In its petition for waiver, CNA has suggested the following alternate test procedure:
• Update the existing installation requirements in section 2.1 of Appendix C1 to add that, “A compact in-sink dishwasher combined with a sink doesn't have a flat bottom and must be tested in a rectangular enclosure constructed of nominal 0.374 inch (9.5 mm) plywood painted black. The enclosure must consist of a bottom, a front, a back, and two sides, and it shall not have a top. We put the in-sink dishwasher into the enclosure from the top and mounted it to the edges of the enclosure.”
• Update the existing detergent requirements in section 2.10 of Appendix C1 to add that, “For compact dishwashers that have neither prewash program nor a main detergent compartment, determine the amount of main wash detergent (in grams) to be added directly into the dishwasher chamber according to section 2.10.2 of this appendix.”
DOE has reviewed FOTILE's application for an interim waiver and the alternate test procedure requested by FOTILE. DOE also reviewed manufacturer information available on-line, including the operation manual
For the reasons stated, it is
(1) FOTILE must test and rate the following dishwasher basic models with the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (2).
(2) The alternate test procedure for the FOTILE basic models identified in paragraph (1) of this Interim Waiver Order is the test procedure for dishwashers prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C1, except that the requirements for dishwasher installation and detergent placement are as detailed below. All other requirements of Appendix C1 and DOE's regulations remain applicable.
In section 2.1,
A compact in-sink dishwasher with a combination sink must be installed in a rectangular enclosure constructed of nominal 0.374 inch (9.5 mm) plywood painted black. The enclosure must consist of a front, a bottom, a back, and two sides and the dishwasher must be installed from the top and mounted to the edges of the enclosure.
In section 2.10,
For compact in-sink dishwashers with a combination sink that have neither prewash program nor a main detergent compartment, determine the amount of main wash detergent (in grams) to be added directly into the washing chamber according to section 2.10.2 of this appendix.
(3)
(4) This Interim Waiver Order shall remain in effect according to the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27.
(5) This Interim Waiver Order is issued on the condition that the statements, representations, test data, and documentary materials provided by FOTILE are valid. If FOTILE makes any modifications to the controls or configurations of a basic model subject to this Interim Waiver Order, such modifications will render the waiver invalid with respect to that basic model, and FOTILE will either be required to use the current Federal test method or submit a new application for a test procedure waiver. DOE may rescind or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for the Interim Waiver Order is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(1). Likewise, FOTILE may request that DOE rescind or modify the Interim Waiver Order if FOTILE discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the interim waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(2).
(6) Issuance of this Interim Waiver Order does not release FOTILE from the applicable requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. FOTILE may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional basic models of dishwashers. Alternatively, if appropriate, FOTILE may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(g).
Ningbo FOTILE Kitchen Ware Co. Ltd respectfully submits this petition for Waiver and for Interim Waiver of the Department of Energy (DOE or Department) test procedure for residential dishwashers. Specifically, FOTILE seeks a waiver for its very-small-capacity, highly compact, 3-IN-1 in-sink dishwasher because it contains design characteristics that prevent testing according to the test procedures from Appendix C1. This dishwasher does not have a main detergent compartment and has different installation instructions than under-counter or under-sink dishwashers. As a result, the current test procedure is not representative of consumers' use of the product or the product's energy and water consumption characteristics. As described below, FOTILE proposes an alternative test procedure for this dishwasher that will allow FOTILE to test the product and determine its' compliance in accordance with the Department's current energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers.
FOTILE Group, based on Ningbo China, has been focusing on high-end kitchen appliances since its foundation in 1996. FOTILE's business footprints have covered more than 30 countries, including the United States, Canada, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, etc. FOTILE markets its products only under the “FOTILE” brand in the United States.
The Basic models for which a waiver is requested are SD2F-P1X and SD2F-P1XL. Both of these models include a sink and a dishwasher combined into one unit. These two models are basically identical. They have the same electrical, physical, and functional characteristics that affect energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, and water efficiency. The only difference between SD2F-P1X and SD2F-P1XL is the position of the sink and the dishwasher. The dishwasher chamber of SD2F-P1X is on the right and of SD2F-P1XL is on the left. As a result, these basic models can use the same petition for Waiver and for Interim Waiver.
The FOTILE non-soil-sensing in-sink dishwasher is a highly beneficial product, especially suitable for small families, tiny house structures, RVs, home bars, secondary kitchens, and other space-constrained places. The unit uses less time to finish a normal wash, which is approximately 45min with excellent washing results. It also has beneficial design characteristics to avoid having to bend when loading and unloading dishes.
To the best of FOTILE's knowledge, FOTILE is unable to identify any other manufactures distributing residential dishwasher models in commerce in the United States that incorporate all of the design characteristics that are the subject of this petition.
According to the Appendix C1, FOTILE in-sink dishwasher is a compact dishwasher, as it can only hold 2 place settings and 6 serving pieces. The current test procedure for compact dishwasher is set forth in Appendix C1.
FOTILE requires a wavier because the design characteristics of its in-sink dishwasher prevent testing of the product according to the prescribed DOE test procedure. The first reason we require a waiver is, the FOTILE in-sink dishwasher does not have a main detergent compartment. Consumers can add dishwasher detergent directly into the dishwasher chamber. The second reason we are applying for a waiver is this unit is combined with a sink and has a different height, so the machine does not have a flat bottom, and cannot stand on the ground. Therefore, the installation instructions are different from a traditional under-counter dishwasher. Because of these two design characteristics, this unit cannot be tested in accordance with sections of the test procedure regarding adding detergent and installation requirements. As described further below, FOTILE therefore requests a waiver of those aspects of the test procedure and proposes an alternative in which the detergent is put directly into the dishwasher chamber, and the unit is mounted into a counter top cut-out enclosure.
FOTILE submits that the procedure is representative of consumer use and thus, representative of the product's true energy and water consumption characteristics.
FOTILE proposed the following alternative test procedure to evaluate the performance of the model that is subject of the waiver request. The alternative test procedure is the same as the existing test procedure for residential dishwasher except that it considers that the unit doesn't have a main detergent compartment and doesn't have a flat bottom.
FOTILE shall be required to test the performance of the model subject to the waiver according to the test procedure for residential dishwashers in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix C1, except as follows:
“For compact dishwashers that have neither prewash program nor a main detergent compartment, determine the amount of main wash detergent (in grams) to be added directly into the dishwasher chamber according to section 2.10.2 of this appendix.”
“A compact in-sink dishwasher combined with a sink doesn't have a flat bottom and must be tested in a rectangular enclosure constructed of nominal 0.374inch (9.5mm) plywood painted black. The enclosure must consist of a bottom, a front, a back, and two sides, and it shall not have a top. We put the in-sink dishwasher into the enclosure from the top and mounted it to the edges of the enclosure.”
FOTILE also hereby applies for an Interim Waiver of the applicable test procedure requirement for its very-small-capacity, highly compact, 3-IN-1 in-sink residential dishwasher. The models for which the Interim Waiver is requested are SD2F-P1X and SD2F-P1XL. These models will be marketed in commerce under the FOTILE brand name. Based on these facts, we feel FOTILE meets the criteria for an Interim Waiver. Without waiver relief, FOTILE would be subject to requirements that clearly cannot apply to this product. In addition, FOTILE would most likely suffer economic hardship and be at a competitive disadvantage if it cannot gain DOE approval and start to distribute in the United States.
FOTILE's in-sink dishwasher meets consumers' needs in today's marketplace because it is highly compact, easy to install, saves time, and eliminates having to bend down while loading and unloading dishes. It is also an affordable, energy-efficient alternative for consumers to choose. In FOTILE's opinion, we feel there is no basis to delay this innovative product from entering the marketplace.
FOTILE respectfully requests that DOE grant its Petition for Waiver of the applicable test procedure and grant its Petition for Interim Waiver for the specified models.
FOTILE also submits its test report according to the alternate test procedure included in the attachment.
Thank you for your timely attention on reviewing this application of petition for Waiver and for Interim Waiver.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notification of petition for waiver and grant of an interim waiver; request for comments.
This document announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver and interim waiver from Hercules, a Senneca Holdings company, which seeks a waiver for specified basic models of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer doors (“walk-in doors”) from the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) test procedure used for determining the energy consumption of walk-in doors. This document also provides notification of an Interim Waiver Order requiring Hercules to test and rate the specified walk-in door basic models in accordance with the alternate test procedure set forth in the Interim Waiver Order. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning the petition and its suggested alternate test procedure so as to inform DOE's final decision on the waiver request.
The Interim Waiver Order is effective on February 8, 2021. Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before March 10, 2021.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
•
•
•
No telefacsimilies (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see the
The docket web page can be found at
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email:
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. Faxes will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 28, 2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the covered equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment during a representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) The test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer doors (“walk-in doors”) is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, “Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy Consumption of the Components of Envelopes of Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers” (“Appendix A”).
Under 10 CFR 431.401, any interested person may submit a petition for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.
As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
The waiver process also provides that DOE may grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the underlying petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the underlying petition for waiver.
When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance.
By letter dated July 22, 2020, Hercules, a Senneca Holdings company, (“Hercules”) filed a petition for waiver and interim waiver from the test procedure for walk-in doors set forth at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A. (Hercules, No. 1; “July 2020 petition”)
Section 4.5.2 of Appendix A, “Direct Energy Consumption of Electrical Components of Non-Display Doors”, establishes percent time off (“PTO”) values that account for the percent of time that an electrical device is assumed to be off for lighting, anti-sweat heaters, and any other electricity-consuming devices. The PTO value discounts the daily energy consumption of electrical components as calculated in section 4.5.2(b) of Appendix A. Hercules stated that the basic models identified in its petition use electric door motors for vertical and horizontal openings of the walk-in doors. The motors described in Hercules's waiver petition are “other electricity consuming devices . . . controlled by a preinstalled timer, control system or other auto-shut-off system” under section 4.5.2(a)(3) of Appendix A. The DOE test procedure specifies using a PTO value of 25 percent for such devices, thereby reflecting an “on” time of 75 percent. Hercules stated that operating a door motor for 75 percent of the day significantly overstates normal motor usage on their powered door models. (Hercules, No. 2 at p. 1)
In the July 2020 petition, Hercules requested a PTO of 96 percent, based on an opening of 120 inches, instead of the PTO value of 25 percent specified in section 4.5.2(a)(3) of Appendix A for electricity-consuming devices other than lighting and anti-sweat heaters. (Hercules, No. 1 at pp. 2-3) DOE requested clarification from Hercules on the maximum opening width and height for all horizontally and vertically opening doors specified in the petition for waiver to evaluate the most energy consumptive scenarios.
In the October 2020 petition, Hercules provided performance data for three door examples: the first two for horizontally sliding door basic models and the third for vertical lift door basic models. (Hercules, No. 2 at pp. 2-3) All examples estimated a normal daily use of 120 cycles. One cycle is one complete opening and one complete closing of a
The first example provided by Hercules was the Single Slide Electric Horizontal Sliding Door, which has a maximum opening of 288 inches operating at a speed of 10 inches per second (“IPS”) in both directions. (Hercules, No. 2 at p. 2) For this example, the normal daily use cycle estimate and cycle time estimate result in a total motor run time of 115.2 minutes (1.92 hours) per day, leaving the door motor out of operation for 22.08 hours per day, or 92 PTO.
The second example provided by Hercules was the Bi-Parting Electric Horizontal Sliding Door, which has a maximum opening of 288 inches operating at a speed of 10 IPS in both directions for each door.
The third example provided by Hercules was the Electric Vertical Lift door, which has a maximum vertical opening of 288 inches operating at a speed of 12 IPS in both directions. (Hercules, No. 2 at p. 3). For this example, the normal daily use cycle estimate and cycle time estimate result in a total run time of 96 minutes (1.6 hours) per day, leaving the door motor out of operation for 22.4 hours per day, or 93.3 PTO.
Based on these calculations, Hercules petitioned DOE to apply a PTO value of 92 percent for the specified basic models of their walk-in doors that use electric door motors.
Hercules also requested an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. DOE will grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver.
Based on the assertions in the petition, absent an interim waiver, the walk-in door basic models with electric door motors identified in Hercules's October 2020 petition for a waiver cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their actual energy consumption characteristics.
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Consistency is important when making representations about the energy efficiency of covered equipment, including when demonstrating compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations at 10 CFR 430.401, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE may establish in a subsequent Decision and Order an alternate test procedure for the basic models addressed by the Interim Waiver Order.
Hercules seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate specific walk-in door basic models. Instead of using the PTO value of 25 percent established in section 4.5.2(a)(3) of Appendix A for electricity-consuming devices other than lighting and anti-sweat heaters, Hercules requests using the minimum calculated PTO value in their petition, 92 percent, for all of their specified models.
DOE has reviewed Hercules's application for an interim waiver, the alternate test procedure requested by Hercules, and the data provided by Hercules in both its original July 2020 petition and the October 2020 petition, along with material on its website. As part of DOE's review, DOE considered the potential range of parameters affecting door motor operating time, including door opening width or height, speed of door closing/opening, and cycles per day.
DOE examined the operating conditions specified in Hercules's petition and compared them with the values mentioned in the product literature. Specifically, DOE compared the minimum operating speed of the motor and maximum length or height of the door opening to assess if the most energy consumptive scenario was captured in the PTO value requested. Based on DOE's review of the manufacturer materials, the examples provided by Hercules in the October 2020 petition and the associated calculations are the most energy consumptive scenarios for the basic models specified by Hercules (
Based on DOE's review, Hercules's suggested alternate test procedure that applies a PTO value of 92 percent appears to allow for the accurate measurement of the energy consumption of the specified basic models, while alleviating the testing issues associated with Hercules's implementation of walk-in door testing for these basic models. The required use of a PTO value of 92 percent is consistent with waivers previously granted in response to petitions that presented the same issue as in Hercules's petition.
For the reasons stated, it is
(1) Hercules must test and rate the Hercules brand basic models listed in Appendix I of its October 14, 2020 petition as provided in Docket Number EERE-2020-BT-WAV-0027
(2) The alternate test procedure for the Hercules basic models identified in paragraph (1) of this Interim Waiver Order is the test procedure for walk-in doors prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, except that the percent time off (“PTO”) value specified in section 4.5.2 “Direct Energy Consumption of Electrical Components of Non-Display Doors” shall be 92 percent for door motors. All other requirements of 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A and DOE's regulations remain applicable.
(3)
(4) This Interim Waiver Order shall remain in effect according to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401.
(5) This Interim Waiver Order is issued on the condition that the door performance characteristics, statements, representations, test data, and documentary materials provided by Hercules are valid. If Hercules makes any modifications to the controls or configurations of a basic model subject to this Interim Waiver Order, such modifications will render the waiver invalid with respect to that basic model, and Hercules will either be required to use the current Federal test method or submit a new application for a test procedure waiver. DOE may rescind or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for the Interim Waiver Order is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(1). Likewise, Hercules may request that DOE rescind or modify the Interim Waiver Order if Hercules discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the interim waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(2).
(6) Issuance of this Interim Waiver Order does not release Hercules from the applicable requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. Hercules may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional basic models of walk-in doors. Alternatively, if appropriate, Hercules may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(g).
Signed in Washington, DC, on December 28, 2020.
Hercules, a Senneca Holdings company, is petitioning for a Waiver and submitting an Application for Interim Waiver from the current Department of Energy (DOE) code for walk in freezer doors per Title 10 Chapter II Subpart R, General Provisions, Section 431.401.
Hercules began operating in 1952 as an insulated walk-in cooler and specialty refrigeration equipment manufacturer. Today, Hercules is a recognized manufacturer of high-quality, made-to-order Cold Storage door systems. Hercules is mainly focused on applications including Blast Freezer, Freezer, Cooler, Docks, Processing, Ripening Rooms, Automotive Test Cells, Research Facilities and Distribution Facilities. Senneca Holdings Company previously sold Hercules products into applications greater than 3000 square feet, but recently has decided to market Hercules products into smaller applications that are regulated by DOE.
Hercules requests a waiver and interim waiver for the Hercules brand basic models set forth in Appendix I.
Please note that Appendix I uses wildcards to represent height and width measurements in the individual model numbers, as well as whether the individual model includes a window. Use of the wildcards is necessary as Senneca has not yet determined every precise height and width combination that we will include in a forthcoming certification submission. In order to ensure DOE has enough information to assess what sized doors are covered by the waiver request, Senneca has identified the final surface area for each basic model listed in Appendix I. The ultimate size of a door is determined by the surface area in the basic model number, however no door covered by Appendix I has an opening larger than 288 inches or smaller than 36 inches. The exact height and width of individual models will be reflected in Senneca's certifications.
Currently, per the standard at 10 CFR 431.306, section 4.5.2, the rating of the door for insulating values and motor power uses a percent time off, or PTO, of 25 percent. This would require the door motor to operate for 75 percent of the day which significantly overstates normal motor usage on our basic brands of powered door models.
The first example, listed below, discusses two door types within our horizontally sliding door model groups that normally operate at a total speed of 10 Inches Per Second (IPS) or greater. The second example is for the Hercules vertical lift door model that normally operates at a total speed of 12 IPS or greater. Documentation and support for the numbers used below are included in Appendix II. While the supporting materials in Appendix II refer to and cover a broader group of doors than the Hercules basic models listed in Appendix I, these materials are accurate in their description of the components of the Hercules basic models listed in Appendix I. That is, the supporting materials provided cover all Hercules basic models listed in Appendix I.
EHS-D doors have one panel that must travel the entire width of the opening to open or close, while EBP-D doors have two panels that each must travel one-half the width of the opening—from the midpoint of the opening—to open or close. As a result, although the operator moves both EHS-D and EBP-D door panels at the same speed, the door cycle for EBP-D doors is half that of EHS-D doors. For this reason, the PTO values for EHS-D versus EBP-D doors are calculated separately below.
The DOE has stated that door operation of 120 cycles (operations) per day is normal. Hercules uses this cycle number as our norm when estimating customer usage of sliding model groups listed above also and will use this as the base for our first PTO example. One cycle is defined as one opening and closing cycle of a door with a door opening of 288 inches operating at a constant speed of 10 IPS in both opening and closing directions.
The amount of time that the door is in the open and stopped position does not add to the calculation as the motor is not powered during this time.
Our second example covers doors within our vertical lift model group. Hercules Vertical Lift door basic models are operated at a maximum of 120 cycles (operations) per day, as specified by the DOE. One cycle is defined as one opening and closing cycle of a door. There is a maximum possible door travel of 288 inches operating at a constant speed of 12 IPS in both opening and closing directions.
The amount of time that the door is in the open and stopped position does not add to the calculation as the motor is not powered during this time.
Based on the PTO examples above Hercules would request a waiver to use a PTO value of 92 percent for the Hercules basic models set forth in Appendix I.
Hercules is also requesting an interim waiver for the identified Hercules basic models and individual models in Appendix I. Given the economic realities of business, it is imperative that the interim waiver be granted so that Senneca may ship Hercules doors to be used in DOE-regulated environments during the pendency of DOE's review. Without a waiver, Hercules would be in a position of disadvantage in the marketplace for our products. Other manufacturers of similar product design, such as Jamison Doors, have petitioned and previously been granted Interim and permanent waivers on the same basis.
Manufacturers that are known to us of other basic models that are distributed in the United States and that incorporate designs with similar characteristics that are subject to this petition include: JAMISON DOORS, HH TECHNOLOGIES and FRANK DOORS.
For a list of the specific basic models for which the test procedure applies see the docket at
For product literature used to calculate percent time off see the docket at
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Effective February 11, 2021.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-7506,
This correction clarifies that the Commission's modifications to § 15.712(h)(1) were to the introductory text of (h)(1) and not (h)(1) as a whole.
In FR Doc. 20-26706, appearing on page 2278 in the
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of compliance date.
In this document, the Commission announces that compliance with the rule for reporting information about the most recent date of permanent
Compliance with 47 CFR 64.1200(l)(2), published at 84 FR 11226, March 26, 2019, is required as of March 10, 2021.
Karen Schroeder of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Policy Division, at (202) 418-0654 or
This document announces that OMB approved the information collection requirement in § 64.1200(l)(2) on June 2, 2020.
The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the compliance date of the rule.
The Commission previously announced that compliance with the rules for aging numbers and maintaining records of the most recent date of permanent disconnection was required as of July 27, 2020, published at 85 FR 38334, June 26, 2020.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on January 14, 2021.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2020 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This retroactive adjustment to the 2020 fishing year quota is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the retroactively revised 2020 commercial quotas for North Carolina and Massachusetts.
Effective February 5, 2021, through December 31, 2021.
Laura Hansen, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9225.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102 and final 2020 allocations were published on October 9, 2019 (84 FR 54041).
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan (FMP), as published in the
North Carolina is transferring 9,185 lb (4,166 kg) of 2020 summer flounder commercial quota to Massachusetts through mutual agreement of the states. This transfer was requested to repay landings made by a North Carolina-permitted vessel in Massachusetts under a safe harbor agreement. The revised summer flounder quotas for calendar year 2020 are: North Carolina, 3,026,316 lb (1,372,714 kg); and, Massachusetts, 802,549 lb (364,030 kg).
Given the timing of the safe harbor agreement and the states' request, we were unable to process the transfer before the December 31st end of the 2020 fishing year. The retroactively adjusted quotas will be used to calculate overages for the 2020 fishing year and adjust, as needed, 2021 summer flounder quotas.
16 U.S.C. 1801
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of public hearings.
The United States Copyright Office will be holding public hearings as part of the eighth triennial rulemaking proceeding under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) concerning possible exemptions to the DMCA's prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Parties interested in testifying at the hearings are invited to submit requests to testify pursuant to the instructions set forth below.
The public hearings are scheduled for April 5-8 and April 19-22, 2021. Requests to testify must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on February 24, 2021. Once the hearing agendas are finalized, the Office will notify all participants and post the times and dates of the hearings at
The Office will conduct the hearings remotely using the Zoom videoconferencing platform. Requests to testify should be submitted through the request form available at
Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at
On June 22, 2020, the Copyright Office (“Office”) published a notice of inquiry in the
At this time, the Office is announcing public hearings to be held via Zoom to further consider the proposed exemptions. The Office plans to convene panels of witnesses for the proposals to be considered, and may combine certain panels if the witnesses and/or key issues substantially overlap. All of the hearings will be live streamed online, and the video and transcript for each hearing will be posted on the Office's website. If no request to testify is received for a proposed exemption, the Office will consider the class based on the written submissions and any
A request to testify should be submitted to the Office using the form on the Office's website indicated in the
Depending upon the number and nature of the requests, and in light of the limited time available for the public hearings, the Office may not be able to accommodate all requests to testify. The Office will give preference to those who have provided substantive evidentiary submissions in support of or in opposition to a proposal.
All requests to testify must clearly identify:
• The name of the person desiring to serve as a witness;
• The organization or organizations represented, if any;
• Contact information;
• The proposed class about which the person wishes to testify;
• A two- to three-sentence summary of the testimony the witness expects to present; and
• If the party is requesting the ability to demonstrate a use or a technology during the hearing, a description of the demonstration, the approximate time required, and any functionality required to make the demonstration viewable via Zoom. In light of the transition to virtual hearings for this proceeding, the Office cannot guarantee that witnesses will have the ability to introduce demonstrative evidence into the record during the hearings. The Office will consider options to accommodate such requests, including potentially by holding one or more dedicated panel sessions for that purpose.
Following receipt of the requests to testify, the Office will prepare agendas listing the witnesses, dates, and times for each hearing. These will be circulated to witnesses and posted at
The Office will establish time limits for each panel after receiving all requests to testify. Generally, the Office plans to allot approximately one to two hours for each proposed class, although it may adjust the timing depending upon the complexity of the class. In addition, members of the public will be provided a limited opportunity to offer additional comments for the record, but parties who wish to provide detailed information to the Office are encouraged to submit a request to testify.
Witnesses should expect the Office to have carefully studied all written comments, and the Office will expect witnesses to have done the same with respect to the classes for which they will be presenting. The hearings will focus on legal or factual issues that are unclear or underdeveloped in the written record, as identified by the Office, as well as demonstrative evidence.
The Office stresses that factual information is critical to the rulemaking process, and witnesses should be prepared to discuss, among other things, where the copies of the works sought to be accessed are stored, how the works would be accessed, and what would be done with the works after being accessed. The Office also encourages witnesses to provide real-world examples to support their arguments. In some cases, the best way to do this may be to provide a description or demonstration of a claimed noninfringing use or the technologies pertinent to a proposal. As noted above, a person wishing to provide a demonstration should include a request to do so with the request to testify, using the appropriate space on the form. Persons should consider whether a demonstration is able to be presented in a format that enables it to be viewed by participants and observers via Zoom. To ensure proper documentation of the hearings, the Office will require that a copy of any audio, visual, or audiovisual materials (
During the seventh triennial rulemaking, the Office issued guidelines according to which interested parties could request informal meetings with the Office. The Office intends to issue similar guidelines in this proceeding. Consistent with its prior practice, the Office will establish requirements to ensure transparency, including that participating parties submit a list of attendees and a written summary of any oral communications, which will be posted on the Office's website. The
As in prior proceedings, such informal communications may supplement, but not substitute for, the written record and testimony at the public hearings. The primary means to communicate views in the course of the rulemaking will continue to be through the submission of written comments and testimony at the public hearings.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). This SIP revision consists of the 2010 amendments to the State of Delaware's Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing (MERR) regulations to incorporate the Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC) 2009 Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations regulations (MVMERR) model rule. The MVMERR rule establishes updated volatile organic compounds (VOC) content limits for coating and cleaning solvents used in vehicle refinishing and standards for coating application, work practices, monitoring, and recordkeeping. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0522 at
Mike Gordon, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30) Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2039. Mr. Gordon can also be reached via electronic mail at
Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions between VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NO
The OTC 2009 MVMERR Model Rule
Automobile refinishing includes the application of coatings following the manufacture of original equipment. “Automobile” or “vehicle” in this category refers to passenger cars, trucks, vans, motorcycles, and other mobile equipment capable of being driven on the highway. Automobile refinishing work typically consists of structural repair, surface preparation, and painting, and includes operations in auto body repair/paint shops, production auto body paint shops, new car dealer repair/paint shops, fleet operator repair/paint shops, and custom-made car fabrication facilities. The steps involved in automobile refinishing include surface preparation, coating applications, and spray equipment. VOC emissions result from the evaporation of solvents during each of these processes and can be controlled through the use of compliant coatings and solvents, the use of application equipment with increased transfer efficiency, and stringent work practice standards.
The main categories of coatings are primers and topcoats. The primer category consists of pretreatment wash primers, primers, primer surfacers, and primer sealer. Topcoats are applied over the primer coats and provide the final color to the refinished area. Primers and coatings can be classified as lacquer, enamel, or urethane coatings. Each coating differs in its chemistry, durability, and VOC content. Some additives and specialty coatings are necessary for unusual performance requirements and are used in relatively small amounts to improve desirable properties. Additives and special coatings include adhesion promoters, uniform refinish blenders, elastomeric materials for flexible plastic parts, gloss flatteners, and anti-glare/safety coatings. For additional information, see EPA's “Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) Document: Automobile Body Refinishing” (EPA-453/R-94-031, April 1994).
On May 6, 2020, DNREC submitted a SIP revision consisting of amendments to its MERR rule to incorporate the OTC 2009 MVMERR Model Rule. If approved into the SIP, Delaware's 2010 amended MERR rule would be federally enforceable. Affected sources within the State of Delaware include: Auto body and repair facilities; fleet operator repair and paint facilities; new and used auto dealer repair and paint facilities; after-market auto customizing and detailing facilities; manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of coatings and cleaning solvents intended for use and application to motor vehicles, mobile equipment, and associated components; and manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of application equipment and materials storage such as spray booths, spray guns, and sealed containers for cleaning rags for use within the State of Delaware.
As summarized in Delaware's transmittal memo for this SIP revision, this SIP revision to Delaware's existing regulation, 7 DE Admin Code 1124, reduces the VOC contents of currently regulated coatings, regulates additional coating categories, requires the use of coating application equipment that provides for high transfer efficiency, and requires that surface cleaning solvent contain no more than 25 grams of VOC per liter. More specifically, Delaware's 2010 amended MERR rule establishes revised VOC content limits for automotive coatings and cleaning solvents used in the preparation, application, and drying phases of vehicle refinishing. Delaware's 2010 amended MERR rule also establishes coating application standards, work practices, operator training standards, and compliance and recordkeeping standards. Table 1 lists the revised VOC limits adopted by the State of Delaware in 2010, and compares them to the standards set in the OTC 2009 MVMERR Model Rule.
Delaware's 2010 amended MERR rule incorporates without any revisions the VOC limits for all the available coating categories found in the OTC's 2009 MVMERR model rule. In addition, Delaware's 2010 amended MERR rule requires that surface cleaning solvent contain no more than 25 grams of VOC per liter, as required by the 2009 OTC MVMERR Model Rule. All the VOC limits in Delaware's 2010 amended MERR rule are as stringent as the limits in the 2009 OTC MVMERR Model Rule, as shown in Table 1 of this document. Approval of Delaware's 2010 amended MERR rule into the SIP would make these limits, the coating and cleaning solvent VOC content limits, and the use of coating application equipment which provides high transfer efficiency, federally enforceable. The VOC reductions resulting from Delaware's adoption of the 2010 changes to implement the 2009 OTC MVMERR Model Rule have been occurring since the effective date of Delaware's amended regulations, and upon final approval of this SIP revision, will become federally enforceable and will continue to be federally enforceable until such time as Delaware submits, and EPA approves, a SIP revision to revise these limits. Approving Delaware's 2010 amended MERR rule into the SIP strengthens Delware's SIP, and EPA is therefore proposing to approve it into the Delaware SIP as a SIP strengthening measure.
EPA is proposing to approve Delaware's 2010 amended MERR rule as a SIP revision. EPA has determined that Delaware's 2010 amended MERR rule is consistent with the requirements and limits in the 2009 OTC MVMERR Model Rule. Therefore, its approval into the Delaware SIP would result in the VOC reductions in the 2010 amended MERR rule becoming federally enforceable and strengthen the SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document relevant to Delaware's 2010 amended MERR rule. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to 7 DE Admin Code 1124 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Section 11.0 Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rulemaking, in which EPA is proposing approval of Delaware's 2010 amended MERR rule to incorporate the 2009 OTC MVMERR Model rule, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Rhode Island. These revisions update Rhode Island air pollution control regulations for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from consumer products and architectural and industrial maintenance coatings. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of the revised regulations. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0712 at
David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA, tel. 617-918-1584, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On January 24, 2020, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management submitted to EPA a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing three revised air pollution control regulations: 250-RICR-120-05-0, “General Definitions”; 250-RICR-120-05-31, “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products”; and 250-RICR-120-05-33, “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Architectural Coatings and Industrial Maintenance Coatings.” These revised regulations became effective in Rhode Island on January 9, 2017. In each regulation Rhode Island has submitted to EPA for incorporation into the SIP, its subsection 2 “Application” has been stricken from the rule. Rhode Island notes that this language is only relevant in Rhode Island and not intended to be incorporated into the Rhode Island SIP.
On April 1, 2020, Rhode Island modified its January 24, 2020, SIP revision request by withdrawing 250-RICR-120-05-33, “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Architectural Coatings and Industrial Maintenance Coatings.” On July 22, 2020, Rhode Island submitted to EPA a SIP revision containing a more recently amended version of 250-RICR-120-05-33, “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Architectural Coatings and Industrial Maintenance Coatings.” Again, its subsection 2 “Application”
On December 28, 2020, Rhode Island modified its January 24, 2020, SIP revision request by withdrawing 250-RICR-120-05-0, “General Definitions” from the SIP revision, because EPA had since approved a more recent version of Rhode Island's regulation 0, “General Definitions” effective in the State of Rhode Island on February 9, 2018, in a final rulemaking published September 3, 2020 (85 FR 54924).
Thus, this proposed action addresses two revised regulations: “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products” and “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Architectural Coatings and Industrial Maintenance Coatings”, submitted by Rhode Island on January 24, 2020 and July 22, 2020, respectively. EPA previously approved earlier versions of these regulations into the Rhode Island SIP on March 13, 2012 (77 FR 14691).
Rhode Island is a member state of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), an organization established by Congress under the CAA which is composed of 12 states, and the District of Columbia, throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. The OTC develops model rules for the member states to use to reduce the emissions of ground level ozone precursors. In 2011, OTC authored a model rule limiting VOC content in architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, which was the second version of this model rule. Then in 2012, the OTC issued a model rule to limit the VOC content of consumer products, which was the fourth version of this model rule. In 2013, the OTC again revised its consumer products rule to include dual purpose air freshener/disinfectants.
Rhode Island's revised 250-RICR-120-05-31, “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products” is based on the 2013 OTC model rule for consumer products. The regulation generally applies to “any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, distributes for sale or manufactures for sale within Rhode Island any consumer products on or after the applicable date.” The regulation limits the VOC content, expressed in percent of VOC by weight, for certain consumer product categories, and content limits are restricted based on the product date of manufacture. Compared to the previously approved EPA version of the regulation, the revision to the regulation lowers VOC content limits for 13 consumer product categories and adds nine new consumer product categories. The revised and new limits apply to the relevant products manufactured on or after January 1, 2019. Additionally, the revised regulation incorporates the new product category definitions and modifies several existing definitions for clarity and consistency with the 2013 OTC model rule. The regulation has also been updated to current Rhode Island code of regulations format.
Rhode Island's revised consumer product regulation continues to contain limits for more categories of consumer products than EPA's National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products rule at 40 CFR part 59 Subpart C (63 FR 48831; September 11, 1998). The revised regulation limits are also equal to, or more stringent than, those found in EPA's consumer products rule.
Rhode Island's 250-RICR-120-05-33, “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Architectural Coatings and Industrial Maintenance Coatings” is based on the 2011 OTC model rule for adhesives and sealants. The revised regulation includes all the approaches to controlling VOC emissions found in EPA's CTG for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives (EPA 453/R-08-005, September 2008): VOC content limits for adhesives and cleaning solvents; work practices; record keeping; air pollution control equipment options; surface preparation requirements; and spray gun cleaning requirements. However, Rhode Island's rule is more comprehensive than the CTG, since it contains VOC content limits for sealants and sealant primers (in addition to adhesives as covered by the CTG) and regulates sellers and manufacturers (not just appliers of regulated adhesives, adhesive primers and sealants). While there are minor differences in the named adhesive categories included in the CTG, those differences are inconsequential compared to the broader applicability of 250-RICR-120-05-33 as noted above. The regulation has also been updated to current Rhode Island code of regulations format.
In summary, as noted above, EPA has reviewed Rhode Island's revised VOC regulations and found that they are no less stringent than the applicable EPA guidance and generally consistent with the OTC recommendations. EPA is proposing to approve the Rhode Island SIP revision for these two regulations (excluding those provisions indicated above that were not submitted by the state), which were submitted to EPA on January 24, 2020 and July 22, 2020. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
EPA is proposing to approve the Rhode Island SIP revisions consisting of two revised regulations 250-RICR-120-05-31, “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products” and 250-RICR-120-05-33, “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Architectural Coatings and Industrial Maintenance Coatings,” excluding the Application subsections 31.2 and 33.2 respectively.
In this document, EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing changes to the Rhode Island SIP as described in the Proposed Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire on March 11, 2019. This revision establishes sulfur content limitations for fuels. In addition, the State requests withdrawal from the SIP of the existing sulfur limitations regulation, which will be superseded if and when EPA takes final action on the State's revised sulfur limitations regulation. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of the State's March 11, 2019 submittal into the New Hampshire SIP. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0209 at
Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617) 918-1697, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
New Hampshire's Env-A 400 Sulfur Content Limits of Fuels was approved by EPA as a revision to the New Hampshire SIP on August 14, 1992 (57 FR 36603). Env-A 400 Sulfur Content Limits of Fuels was subsequently renumbered by the state as Env-A 1600 Fuel Specifications (Env-A 1600). Env-A 1600 was submitted to EPA as a revision to the SIP in 2003 with a subsequent amendment submitted in 2015. However, New Hampshire withdrew both submittals prior to EPA action. Effective July 1, 2018, New Hampshire's Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 125-C:10-d was amended to reduce the sulfur limits in liquid fuels imported into or distributed within the State. The State's March 11, 2019 SIP submittal of revised Env-A 1600 Fuel Specifications implements the state statute, (RSA) 125-C:10-d as amended.
Env-A 1600 is intended to prevent, abate, and control the use of fuels containing specific pollutant elements and compounds. In conjunction with the submittal of Env-A 1600, on May 22, 2019, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES)
On March 11, 2019, the NH DES submitted a SIP revision to EPA. This SIP revision includes Env-A 1600 Fuel Specifications, with amendments to Env-A 1603 and 1604 Sulfur Content Limitations effective December 21, 2018. The amended Env-A 1603 and 1604 lower the allowable limits for the sulfur content of liquid and solid fuels. The submitted Env-A 1600 removes the provisions of the EPA's previously approved Env-A 400 related to sulfur content requirements for natural gas, as explained below in section III.c.
The previous SIP-approved Env-A 400 generally allowed for the use of distillate oil (No. 2), No. 4 oil, and residual oil (Nos. 5 and 6) with a sulfur in fuel limit containing 0.4% sulfur by weight, 1% sulfur by weight, and 2% sulfur by weight, respectively.
In addition, Env-A 1603, Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels prohibits the use of subject fuels at a stationary source or unit, and prohibits any person from supplying such fuels, having a sulfur content in excess of that in Table 2:
EPA finds that Env-A 1600 contains fuel sulfur limits which are more stringent than those in the original rule (Env-A 400), and in addition, includes sulfur limits for additional fuels (kerosene and several grades of aviation fuel) which have not been previously addressed in the SIP.
For solid fuel, the previous SIP-approved Env-A 400 required the use of coal with a maximum sulfur content of 2.8 pounds sulfur per million BTU gross heat content for existing sources, a three month weighted average of 2.0 pounds sulfur per million BTU for coal received for use in any stationary source for the generation of heat or power, and 1.5 pounds sulfur per million BTU gross heat content for sources placed in operation after April 15, 1970. Env-A 1604 Sulfur Content Limitations for Solid Fuels limits the maximum sulfur content in coal to the following:
SIP-approved Env-A 400 requires that gaseous fuel (natural and manufactured gas) shall contain no more than 5 grains per 100 cubic feet of sulfur, calculated as hydrogen sulfide (H
Section 110(
The rule contains a provision whereby the State may, upon application, allow suppliers to defer compliance with sulfur content emission limits of the rule during fuel supply shortages, provided that compliance is not deferred for more than 90 days. Additional requests to defer compliance may be made if the supply shortage continues longer than 90 days. The regulation requires the supplier to: (1) Describe efforts made to obtain compliant fuel, (2) indicate how much compliant fuel the supplier has at the time of the request, and (3) provide an estimate of the duration of the shortage. The rule requires that the State confer with EPA upon receipt of a deferral request. In addition, the rule requires that the State notify EPA within 5 days of issuing an order deferring compliance.
In a letter dated November 20, 2020, NH DES provided additional information on the possible impact of granting a deferral request during a supply shortage.
Since (1) the supplier must demonstrate that certain conditions are met, (2) the deferral of the emission limits may not be permanent or open-ended, (3) such deferral requires notification to EPA, (4) such a temporarily deferral will not result in a significant increase in SO
EPA is proposing to approve Env-A 1600, Fuel Specifications, which was submitted to EPA by New Hampshire on March 11, 2019. In addition, EPA is proposing to remove previously SIP approved Env-400, Sulfur Content of Fuels, which has been superseded by Env-A 1600 as a matter of state law. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference New Hampshire's regulation Env-A 1600 Fuel Specifications as discussed in section III. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to the Commonwealth's plan, submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (referred to as the “1997 ozone NAAQS”) in the Tioga County, Pennsylvania area (Tioga County Area). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0321 at
Adam Yarina, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2108. Mr. Yarina can also be reached via electronic mail at
On March 10, 2020, PADEP submitted a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP to incorporate a plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Tioga County Area through July 6, 2027, in accordance with CAA section 175A.
In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856),
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA designated the Tioga County Area as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, effective June 15, 2004. The Tioga County Area consists solely of Tioga County in Pennsylvania.
Once a nonattainment area has three years of complete and certified air quality data that has been determined to attain the NAAQS, and the area has met the other criteria outlined in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E),
On July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36892, effective the same day), EPA approved a redesignation request and maintenance plan from PADEP for the Tioga County Area. In accordance with section 175A(b), at the end of the eighth year after the effective date of the redesignation, the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years.
EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS and provided that one consequence of revocation was that areas that had been redesignated to attainment (
As previously discussed, CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published longstanding guidance that provides further insight on the content of an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five elements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. The 1992 Calcagni Memo
PADEP's March 10, 2020 SIP submittal outlines a plan for continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS which addresses the criteria set forth in the 1992 Calcagni Memo as follows.
For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive and accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year which identifies the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to maintain the NAAQS. The inventory should be developed consistent with EPA's most recent guidance. For ozone, the inventory should be based on typical summer day's emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO
The data shown in Table 1 is based on the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) version 2.
In order to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of the fourth-highest daily average ozone concentrations (design value, or “DV”) at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the standard is attained if the DV is 0.084 or below. CAA section 175A requires a demonstration that the area will continue to maintain the NAAQS throughout the duration of the requisite maintenance period. Consistent with the prior guidance documents discussed previously in this document as well as EPA's November 20, 2018 “Resource Document for 1997 Ozone NAAQS Areas: Supporting Information for States Developing Maintenance Plans” (2018 Resource Document),
For the purposes of demonstrating continued maintenance with the 1997 ozone NAAQS, PADEP provided 3-year DVs at the monitor located in the Tioga County Area from 2007 to 2018. This includes DVs for 2005-2007, 2006-2008, 2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011, 2010-2012, 2011-2013, 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016, 2015-2017, and 2016-2018, which are shown in Table 2.
The data in Table 2 show that the DVs for the Tioga County Area have been below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (
States can also support the demonstration of continued maintenance by showing stable or improving air quality trends; several kinds of analyses can be performed by states wishing to make such a showing, according to EPA's 2018 Resource Document. One approach is to take the most recent DV at a monitor located in the area and add the maximum DV increase over one or more consecutive years that has been observed in the area over the past several years. A sum of these two values that does not exceed
The Tioga County Area has maintained air quality levels below the 1997 ozone NAAQS since the Area first attained the NAAQS in 2006, and maintained air quality levels at or below 85% of the NAAQS since 2009.
Once an area has been redesignated to attainment, the state remains obligated to maintain an air quality network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, in order to verify the area's attainment status. In the March 10, 2020 submittal, PADEP commits to continue to operate their air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. PADEP also commits to track the attainment status of the Tioga County Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the review of air quality and emissions data during the second maintenance period. This includes an annual evaluation of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and stationary source emissions data compared to the assumptions included in the LMP. PADEP also states that it will evaluate the periodic (
The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures, and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The maintenance plan must require that the state will implement all pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175(A)(d) of the CAA.
PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal includes a contingency plan for the Tioga County Area. In the event that the fourth highest eight-hour ozone concentrations at a monitor in the Tioga County Area exceeds 84 ppb (equivalent to 0.084 ppm) for two consecutive years, but prior to an actual violation of the NAAQS, PADEP will evaluate whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented that may prevent a violation of the NAAQS.
PADEP will use the following criteria when considering additional emission reduction measures to adopt to address a violation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Tioga County Area: (1) Air quality analysis indicating the nature of the violation, including the cause, location, and source; (2) emission reduction potential, including extent to which emission generating sources occur in the nonattainment area; (3) timeliness of implementation in terms of the potential to return the area to attainment as expeditiously as practicable; and (4) costs, equity, and cost-effectiveness. The measures PADEP would consider pursuing for adoption in the Tioga County Area include, but are not limited to, those summarized in Table 3. If additional emission reductions are necessary, PADEP commits to adopt additional emission reduction measures to attain and maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The contingency
EPA proposes to find that the contingency plan included in PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal satisfies the pertinent requirements of CAA section 175A(d). EPA notes that while five of the potential contingency measures included in the Commonwealth's second maintenance plan are non-regulatory, their inclusion among other measures is overall SIP-strengthening, and their inclusion does not alter EPA's proposal to find the LMP is fully approvable. EPA also finds that the submittal acknowledges Pennsylvania's continuing requirement to implement all pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the Tioga County Area to attainment.
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they conform. The conformity rule generally requires a demonstration that emissions from the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). An MVEB is defined as “that portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or approved control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further progress milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).”
Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity without a
EPA's review of PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal indicates that it meets all applicable CAA requirements, specifically the requirements of CAA section 175A. EPA is proposing to approve the second maintenance plan for the Tioga County Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rulemaking, proposing approval of Pennsylvania's second maintenance plan for the Tioga County Area, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision proposes to approve into the Connecticut SIP state regulations that apply restrictions on emissions of criteria pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Separately, we are also proposing to approve Connecticut regulations that apply restrictions on emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The Connecticut regulations impose legally and practicably enforceable emissions limitations restricting eligible sources' actual and potential emissions below major stationary source thresholds, if a source chooses to be covered by the regulations. Such restrictions would generally allow eligible sources to avoid having to comply with reasonably available control technology (RACT) that would otherwise apply to major stationary sources, title V operating permit requirements, or other requirements that apply only to major stationary sources. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0719 at
Susan Lancey, Air Permits, Toxics and Indoor Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone 617-918-1656, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
In a letter dated October 26, 2020, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-33a, Limit on Premises-wide Actual Emissions Below 50% of Title V Thresholds, effective September 24, 2020, and RCSA section 22a-174-33b, Limit on Premises-wide Actual Emissions Below 80% of Title V Thresholds, effective September 24, 2020, as the regulations relate to criteria pollutants. The Connecticut regulations impose legally and practicably enforceable emissions limitations restricting eligible sources' actual and potential emissions below major stationary source thresholds, if a source chooses to be covered by the regulations.
Federally-enforceable limits on criteria pollutants or their precursors (
In a letter dated December 21, 2020, Connecticut DEEP also requested that EPA approve RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b under section 112(l) of the CAA, as the regulations relate to HAPs. As noted earlier, RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b are designed to limit air pollutant emissions from major stationary sources to below major stationary source thresholds by including legally and practicably enforceable restrictions on potential and actual emissions.
On April 24, 2017 in the
EPA's review of this material indicates the regulations satisfy the criteria necessary for EPA's approval as a SIP revision under section 110 of the CAA and satisfy the criteria necessary to be approved under Section 112 of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the Connecticut SIP revision consisting of RCSA section 22a-174-33a, Limit on Premises-wide Actual Emissions Below 50% of Title V Thresholds, effective September 24, 2020, and RCSA section 22a-174-33b, Limit on Premises-wide Actual Emissions Below 80% of Title V Thresholds, effective September 24, 2020, under Section 110 of the CAA. EPA is also separately proposing to approve RCSA section 22a-174-33a, Limit on Premises-wide Actual Emissions Below 50% of Title V Thresholds, effective September 24, 2020, and RCSA section 22a-174-33b, Limit on Premises-wide Actual Emissions Below 80% of Title V Thresholds, effective September 24, 2020, under Section 112 of the CAA.
The State of Connecticut's principal purpose in issuing RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b is to have a federally and practicably enforceable means of expeditiously restricting sources' potential and actual emissions of air pollutants, such that those eligible sources would no longer be required to comply with reasonably available control technology (RACT) that would otherwise apply to major stationary sources, title V operating permit requirements, or other requirements that only apply to major stationary sources. The operating permit provisions in title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 created interest in mechanisms for limiting sources' potential to emit, thereby allowing eligible sources to avoid being defined as “major” with respect to title V operating permit programs. Please note, however, that a source that is eligible for coverage under RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b may still need a title V operating permit if EPA promulgates a National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) or a New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) which require non-major sources to obtain a title V permit.
Connecticut's RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b require the owner or operator committing to operate pursuant to the applicable regulation to submit a notification on forms prescribed by the Commissioner. The owner or operator is required to keep records that include, among other things, calculation of a source's actual emissions of regulated air pollutants and a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate those actual emissions. The methodology used by an eligible source must be selected from a preferential hierarchy of methodologies explicitly identified in the regulations. Under RCSA section
Connecticut's RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b contain emissions limitations, requirements for the source to calculate actual emissions, recordkeeping requirements, and require subject sources to submit an annual compliance certification. Additionally, as noted above, RCSA section 22a-174-33b provides enhanced monitoring requirements for specific source categories at premises operating according to section 22a-174-33b which limits a source's potential and actual emissions up to, but to no more than, 80% of the title V operating permit program thresholds for a major source.
This approach was developed in accordance with an EPA guidance document entitled “Options for Limiting Potential to Emit of a Stationary Source under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act,” issued by John Seitz, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to EPA Air Division Directors, dated January 25, 1995.
The state of Connecticut has also requested approval of RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b under section 112(l) of the Act for the purpose of creating federally enforceable limitations on the potential to emit of HAPs. Approval under CAA section 112(l) is necessary because the SIP approval discussed above, pursuant to section 110 of the Act, does not extend to HAPs. Approval pursuant to section 112(l) of the Act will render RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b federally enforceable for sources of HAPs.
In order for EPA to approve Connecticut's RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b for limiting the potential to emit of HAPs, the regulations must meet the statutory criteria for approval under section 112(l)(5) of the Act. In a July 10, 1996
EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's RCSA section 22a-174-33a, Limit on Premises-wide Actual Emissions Below 50% of Title V Thresholds, effective September 24, 2020, and RCSA section 22a-174-33b, Limit on Premises-wide Actual Emissions Below 80% of Title V Thresholds, effective September 24, 2020, as a revision to the State's SIP with respect to criteria pollutants and is separately proposing to approve the regulations under section 112(l) of the Act with respect to HAPs. EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's request in accordance with the requirements of sections 110 and 112 of the CAA.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Connecticut regulations to limit premises-wide actual and potential emissions from major stationary sources of air pollution as discussed in section IV. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intent of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection to comply with a mandate in the 2014 Farm Bill. (. . . the Secretary of Agriculture should recognize the threat feral swine pose to the domestic swine population and the entire agriculture industry . . .).
Comments on this notice must be received by April 9, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0256, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kevin L. Barnes, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-2707. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at
On April 2, 2014 the USDA kicked off a national effort to reduce the devastating damage caused by feral swine. In 2015 the benchmark survey was conducted in 11 States (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas) to measure the amount of damage feral hogs caused to specific crops in these states. The target population within these states consisted of farm operations who have historically produced one or more of the following crops: Corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, peanuts, or sorghum (Texas only). The results of this benchmark survey shows that in the 11 surveyed States, there was damage to an estimated $190 million in crops for the six target crops. The published findings from this benchmark survey can be found at
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services' (WS) National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) is the only Federal research organization devoted exclusively to resolving conflicts between people and wildlife through the development of effective, selective, and socially responsible methods, tools, and techniques. As increased urbanization leads to a loss of traditional wildlife habitat, the potential for conflicts between people and wildlife increases. Such conflicts can take many forms, including property and natural resource damage, human health and safety concerns, and disease transmission among wildlife, livestock, and humans.
Free-ranging populations of feral swine exist in at least 35 states, and the nationwide population is estimated at
Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
NASS will conduct the survey initially by mail and then followed up with phone attempts for non-response.
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Georgia Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via web conference on Tuesday, March 23, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time for reviewing testimony regarding civil asset forfeiture and preparing for additional hearing(s).
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll-free number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Melissa Wojnaroski at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Georgia Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a briefing via web conference on Wednesday, March 10, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time for the purpose of gathering testimony on civil asset forfeiture in Georgia.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll-free number or online registration link. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captions will be provided. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind, or hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Melissa Wojnaroski at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of Information Collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 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 minimizes the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the proposed new information collection, Generic Clearance for Emergency Economic Information Collections, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before April 9, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Lisa Donaldson, Chief, Economic Management Division, (301)763-7296, and
The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a 3-year period, for a new Generic Information Collection that provides the quick turn-around necessary for conducting emergency economic information collections (EEIC) in response to unanticipated international, national or regional emergencies having a significant economic impact on businesses and/or state or local governments. The purpose of the collections will be to gauge and monitor the economic impact of such events on U.S. businesses and organizations.
The Coronavirus pandemic, in addition to having devastating effects on the health and wellbeing of the global population, has had a profound effect on the world economy. The Census Bureau, in carrying out its mission to serve as the nation's leading provider of quality data about its people and economy, has sought to measure the effect on U.S. businesses through supplemental questions added to several of its recurring business surveys and a new survey meant to measure the effect of the pandemic on businesses. Due to the need to collect data on a timely basis, the Census Bureau submitted these requests to the Office of
Procedurally, the generic clearance will operate in the following manner: The Census Bureau will first obtain OMB clearance under the regular processing provisions of the PRA for the initial generic clearance. The clearance request will define the scope and overall burden of information collections to be conducted under the generic clearance. As future triggering emergencies arise, the Census Bureau will submit quick turnaround requests to OMB which will document the circumstances requiring the EEIC and will include the specific question(s) to be asked. The questions will be chosen from a pretested bank of questions. The question bank will be submitted to OMB for approval along with the initial generic clearance request. The Census Bureau will ask that OMB review and act on requests for individual EEIC's within 72 hours. Information collections conducted under the generic clearance will last a maximum of 6 months. A new quick turnaround request may be submitted under the generic clearance if the Census Bureau determines the need to continue the collection past 6 months.
Events that could trigger the need for an EEIC may have global, national, or regional impact and may include:
As mentioned above, the Census Bureau is developing and cognitively testing a question bank it will utilize to create EEICs. The question bank may, for some subjects, include specific questionnaire content. In other cases, the bank may include topics which will then be addressed with questions developed to meet data needs that arise during a future unknown event.
As data collections will be tailored to the emergency, users of the data may vary, but may include: Federal, state, or local officials charged with decision-making during the emergency; business leaders and policymakers wishing to develop plans to ameliorate the effects of the emergency; academics and members of the press wishing to study and disseminate information about the emergency; and the public. The data collected would help us understand how and why data we collect in our ongoing surveys may be affected by the emergency, as well as allow us to disseminate data as part of existing releases, new releases, or experimental releases.
EEIC questions may be included as supplemental questions on existing Census Bureau surveys or conducted as new surveys. The data will be collected by paper or electronic instruments, depending on the survey or program.
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.
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
Data will be collected using one of two modes. The first mode is a web instrument (Centurion) survey that contains the screener and topical instruments. The web instrument first will take the respondent through the screener questions. If the household screens into the study, the respondent will be taken directly into one of the three age-based topical sets of questions. The second mode is a mailout/mailback of a self-administered paper-and-pencil interviewing (PAPI) screener instrument followed by a separate mailout/mailback of a PAPI age-based topical instrument.
The National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) is a large-scale (sample size is up to 300,000 addresses) national survey with up to 186,000 addresses included in the base production survey and approximately 114,000 addresses included as part of eight separate age-based, state-based, or region-based oversamples. The 2021 NSCH will include a topical incentive test. Prior cycles of the survey have included a $5 unconditional cash incentive with the initial mailing of the paper topical questionnaire. The incentive has proven to be a cost-effective intervention for increasing survey response and reducing nonresponse bias. The 2021 NSCH will test a $10 cash incentive, with a focus on lower responding households.
As in prior cycles of the NSCH, there remain two key, non-experimental design elements. The first additional non-experimental design element is a $5 screener cash incentive mailed to 90% of sampled addresses; the remaining 10% (the control) will receive no incentive to monitor the effectiveness of the cash incentive. This incentive is designed to increase response and reduce nonresponse bias. The incentive amount was chosen based on the results of the 2020 NSCH as well as funding availability. The second additional non-experimental design element is a data collection procedure based on the block group-level paper-only response probability used to identify households (30% of the sample) that would be more likely to respond by paper and send them a paper questionnaire in either the initial mailing or first nonresponse follow-up.
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
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public virtual meeting.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice of a virtual meeting of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee (CSAC). The Committee will address policy, research, and technical issues relating to a full range of Census Bureau programs and activities, including decennial, economic, field operations, information technology, and statistics. Last minute changes to the schedule are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments. Please visit the Census Advisory Committees website at
The virtual meeting will be held on:
The meeting will be held via the WebEx platform at the following presentation links:
For audio, please call the following number: 1-888-843-6166 OR 1-517-308-9473. When prompted, please use the following Password: @Census1, and Passcode: 1641483.
Shana Banks, Advisory Committee Branch Chief, Office of Program, Performance and Stakeholder Integration (PPSI),
The Committee provides scientific and technical expertise to address Census Bureau program needs and objectives. The members of the CSAC are appointed by the Director of the Census Bureau. The Committee has been established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10).
All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside during the virtual meeting for public comments on March 19, 2021. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to
Ron S. Jarmin, Acting Director, Bureau of the Census, approved the publication of this Notice in the
The City of Conroe, grantee of FTZ 265, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Bauer Manufacturing LLC, d/b/a/NEORig (Bauer), located in Conroe, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 1, 2021.
Bauer already has authority to produce pile drivers and leads, boring machinery, foundation construction equipment, stationary oil/gas drilling rigs, and related parts and assemblies within FTZ 265. The current request would add two finished products to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Bauer from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components in the existing scope of authority, Bauer would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to water well drilling rigs, and self-propelled water well drilling rigs (duty-free). Bauer would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
On December 8, 2020, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Illinois International Port District, grantee of FTZ 22, requesting an expansion of Subzone 22F subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 22, on behalf of Abbott Laboratories, in Itasca, Illinois.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable February 1, 2021.
Benjamin A. Luberda or Alex Wood, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2185 or (202) 482-1959, respectively.
On January 12, 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of pentafluoroethane (R-125) from the People's Republic of China (China) filed in proper form on behalf of Honeywell International, Inc. (the petitioner), the sole domestic producer of R-125.
On January 14, 22, and 27, 2021, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in separate supplemental questionnaires and a phone call with the petitioner.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of R-125 from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic R-125 industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegation.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested AD investigation.
Because China is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020.
The product covered by this investigation is R-125 from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
On January 14, 22, and 27, 2021, Commerce requested further information from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope submissions must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's (E&C's) Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of R-125 to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors of production (FOPs) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on February 22, 2021, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2020.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the Petitioner's First Supplemental Questionnaire Response, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition. First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and suppression; lost sales and revenues; decline in employment variables; declining profitability; adverse impact on capital expenditures and capacity utilization; and the magnitude of the alleged dumping margins.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate the AD investigation of imports of R-125 from China. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the AD Initiation Checklist.
The petitioner based export price (EP) on two methodologies: (1) Information from a sale of R-125 produced in and exported from China by a Chinese producer; and (2) transaction-specific average unit values (AUVs) derived from publicly-available import data and tied to ship manifest data obtained from ImportGenius and Datamyne.
Commerce considers China to be an NME country.
The petitioner states that the Russian Federation (Russia) is an appropriate surrogate country because Russia is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of China and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selections and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
The petitioner used its own product-specific consumption rates as a surrogate to value Chinese manufacturers' FOPs.
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of R-125 from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on a comparison of EP to NV, in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for R-125 from China range from 149.09 percent to 238.83 percent.
Based upon our examination of the Petition on R-125 from China and supplemental responses, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of R-125 from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
In the Petition, the petitioner named 11 companies in China as producers and/or exporters of R-125.
In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in AD investigations involving NME countries, Commerce selects respondents based on quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires in cases where it has determined that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon its resources. Therefore, considering the number of producers and exporters identified in the Petition, Commerce will solicit Q&V information that can serve as a basis for selecting exporters for individual examination in the event that Commerce decides to limit the number of respondents individually examined pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Because there are 11 producers and/or exporters identified in the Petition, Commerce has determined that it will issue Q&V questionnaires to each potential respondent for which the petitioner has provided a complete address.
In addition, Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on E&C's website at
Responses to the Q&V questionnaire must be submitted by the relevant Chinese producers/exporters no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on February 17, 2021. All Q&V questionnaire responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the deadline noted above.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under Administrative Protective Order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on E&C's website at
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.
Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the Government of China via ACCESS. Furthermore, to the extent practicable, Commerce will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of R-125 from China are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is pentafluoroethane (R-125), or its chemical equivalent, regardless of form, type or purity level. R-125 has the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number of 354-33-6 and the chemical formula C
Excluded from the current scope is merchandise covered by the scope of the antidumping order on
R-125 is classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2903.39.2035. Merchandise subject to the scope may also be entered under HTSUS subheadings 2903.39.2045 and 3824.78.0020. The HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is postponing the deadline for issuing the final determination in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of seamless refined copper pipe and tube (copper pipe and tube) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) until June 16, 2021, and is extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months.
Applicable February 8, 2021.
Ariela Garvett, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3609.
On July 20, 2020, Commerce initiated the LTFV investigation of imports of copper pipe and tube from Vietnam.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2) provide that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the exporters or producers who account for a significant portion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Further, 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that such postponement requests by exporters be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act.
On January 28, 2021, Hailiang (Vietnam) Copper Manufacturing Company Limited/Hongkong Hailiang Metal Trading Limited (also known as Hong Kong Hailiang Metal Trading Limited) (Hailiang Vietnam/Hongkong Hailiang), the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation, requested that Commerce postpone the deadline for the final determination until no later than 135 days from the publication of the
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is postponing the deadline for issuing the final determination in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of seamless refined copper pipe and tube (copper pipe and tube) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) until June 16, 2021, and is extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months.
Applicable February 8, 2021.
Ariela Garvett, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3609.
On July 20, 2020, Commerce initiated the LTFV investigation of imports of copper pipe and tube from Vietnam.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2) provide that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the exporters or producers who account for a significant portion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Further, 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that such postponement requests by exporters be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act.
On January 28, 2021, Hailiang (Vietnam) Copper Manufacturing Company Limited/Hongkong Hailiang Metal Trading Limited (also known as Hong Kong Hailiang Metal Trading Limited) (Hailiang Vietnam/Hongkong Hailiang), the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation, requested that Commerce postpone the deadline for the final determination until no later than 135 days from the publication of the
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable February 1, 2021.
Joshua Tucker or Peter Skarlatos, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2044 or (202) 482-0324, respectively.
On January 12, 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of pentafluoroethane (R-125) from the People's Republic of China (China) filed in proper form on behalf of Honewell International, Inc. (the petitioner).
Between January 14 and 27, 2021, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of China (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of R-125 in China and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing R-125 in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is supported by information reasonably available to the petitioner.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigation.
Because the Petition was filed on January 12, 2021, the period of investigation is January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is R-125 from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
On January 14, 22, and 27, 2021, Commerce requested further information from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must also be filed on the record of the concurrent AD investigation.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance (E&C)'s Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOC of the receipt of the Petition and provided it the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2020.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the Petitioner's First Supplemental Questionnaire Response, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition. First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (
Because China is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from China materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and suppression; lost sales and revenues; decline in employment variables; declining profitability; and adverse impact on capital expenditures and capacity utilization.
Based upon our examination of the Petition and supplemental responses, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of R-125 from China benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC. Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all five alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
The petitioner named 11 companies in China as producers/exporters of R-125.
Producers/exporters of R-125 from China that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain the Q&V questionnaire from E&C's website at
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOC via ACCESS. Furthermore, to the extent practicable, Commerce will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of R-125 from China are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301.
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is pentafluoroethane (R-125), or its chemical equivalent, regardless of form, type or purity level. R-125 has the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number of 354-33-6 and the chemical formula C
Excluded from the current scope is merchandise covered by the scope of the antidumping order on
R-125 is classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2903.39.2035. Merchandise subject to the scope may also be entered under HTSUS subheadings 2903.39.2045 and 3824.78.0020. The HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is issuing a correction to the previously published
Applicable February 8, 2021.
Davina Friedmann, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0698.
On January 22, 2021, Commerce published the
With this notice, we are hereby correcting the
As stated in the
This
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments on proposed Renewal incidental harassment authorization.
NMFS has received a request from the Chesapeake Tunnel Joint Venture (CTJV) for the Renewal of their currently active incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals incidental to Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project (PTST) in Virginia Beach, Virginia. These activities are identical to those covered in the current authorization. The project has experienced delays and most of the work covered in the initial IHA will not be completed by the time it expires. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, prior to issuing the currently active IHA, NMFS requested comments on both the proposed IHA and the potential for renewing the initial authorization if certain requirements were satisfied. The Renewal requirements have been satisfied, and NMFS is now providing an additional 15-day comment period to allow for any additional comments on the proposed Renewal not previously provided during the initial 30-day comment period.
Comments and information must be received no later than February 23, 2021.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the original application, Renewal request, and supporting documents (including NMFS
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also required. The meaning of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed one year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial authorization, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a Renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential Renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, one-year Renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a Renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section of the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA, provided all of the following conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the Renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed Renewal. A description of the Renewal process may be found on our website at:
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA Renewal qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA Renewal request.
On May 24, 2019, NMFS received a request from the CTJV for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel (CBBT) near Virginia Beach, Virginia. The application was deemed adequate and complete on October 11, 2019. The CTJV's request is for take of harbor seal (
On December 15, 2020, NMFS received an application for the Renewal of the initial IHA. As described in the request for the Renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested are identical to, and consist of a subset of, those covered in the initial authorization. In order to consider an IHA Renewal, NMFS requires the applicant provide a preliminary monitoring report which confirms that the applicant has implemented the required mitigation and monitoring, and which also shows that no impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized have occurred as a result of the activities conducted. NMFS has reviewed CTJV's preliminary monitoring report and has preliminarily determined that CTJV's proposed activities (including mitigation, monitoring, and reporting), estimated incidental take, and anticipated impacts on the affected stocks are the same as those analyzed and authorized through the initial IHA. However, NMFS is requesting comments or additional information that may further inform our proposal to issue an IHA Renewal to CTJV. This IHA Renewal would be valid for a period of one year.
CTJV's planned activities include construction associated with the PTST project. Specifically, the location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the original IHA. The project consists of the construction of a two-lane parallel tunnel to the west of the existing Thimble Shoal Tunnel, connecting Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 of the CBBT facility which extends across the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay near Virginia Beach, Virginia. The PTST project will address existing constraints to regional mobility based on current traffic volume along the facility. Planned construction associated with the initial IHA included the driving of 812 piles over 198 days as shown below:
• 180 12-inch timber piles
• 74 36-inch steel pipe piles
• 500 36-inch interlocked pipes
• 58 42-inch steel casings
Of these planned activities, under the initial IHA CTJV installed a total of 76 36-inch pipe piles and installed and removed 58 42-inch steel casings over approximately 64 construction days. Additionally, 52 36-inch interlocking pipe piles have been eliminated from the construction plan. This is due to a design change which increased the elevation of stone placement on the West berm on Portal Island 1, decreasing the number of piles being installed below Mean High Water (MHW). Remaining piles will be installed using impact driving, vibratory driving and drilling with down-the-hole (DTH) hammers. Some piles will be removed via vibratory hammer. Accounting for work conducted under the initial IHA and the planned design change resulting in a reduction in total piles, CTJV plans to drive 684 piles over an estimated 140 days under this proposed Renewal IHA.
Similarly, the anticipated impacts are identical to those described in the initial IHA. NMFS anticipates the take of the same five species of marine mammal (harbor seal, gray seal, bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, and humpback whale) by Level A and Level B harassment incidental to underwater noise resulting from construction associated with the proposed activities.
The following documents are referenced in this notice and include important supporting information:
• Initial final IHA (85 FR 16061; March 20, 2020);
• Initial proposed IHA (84 FR 64847; November 25, 2019); and
• 2019 IHA application, references cited, and previous public comments received (available at
The PTST project entails construction of a two-lane parallel tunnel to the west of the existing Thimble Shoal Tunnel. The new parallel two-lane tunnel is 6,350 feet (ft) (1935.5 meter (m)) in overall total length with 5,356 linear ft (1632.5 m) located below MHW. Remaining proposed in-water activities to be covered under this Renewal include the following:
• Mooring dolphins: An estimated 180 12-inch timber piles will be used for
• Construction of temporary Omega trestle: 28 in-water 36-inch diameter steel pipe piles will be installed at Portal Island 2;
• Construction of two engineered berms requiring 202 36-inch steel interlocked pipe piles (81 on west side; 121 on east side) for Portal Island 1 and 246 piles of the same size and type (124 piles on west side; 122 on east side) for Portal Island 2. Construction methods will include impact pile driving as well as casing advancement by DTH hammer. Interlocked pipe piles will be installed through the use of DTH drilling equipment. Once the pipes are advanced through the rock layer using the DTH technology, they are driven to final grade via traditional impact driving methods; and
• Vibratory installation and removal of 12 36-inch steel pipe piles at Portal Island 1 and 16 piles at Portal Island 2 on both sides of the new tunnel alignment for settlement mitigation, support of excavation, and to facilitate flowable fill placement.
Some in-water construction activities would occur simultaneously. A detailed description of the construction activities for which authorization of take is proposed here may be found in the
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is proposed here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is proposed here may be found in the
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the
The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the
In summary, mitigation includes implementation of shutdown procedures if any marine mammal approaches or enters the established shutdown zones. Shutdown zones for species authorized for take are as follows: 100 meters for harbor porpoise
Soft start procedures must be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer. Use of an air bubble curtain system will be implemented by the CTJV during impact driving of 36-inch steel piles except in water less than 10 ft in depth.
The CTJV will be required to station between two and four PSOs at locations offering the best available views of the monitoring zones. At least two PSOs will be required to monitor before, during, and after the pile-driving and -removal activities. At least one PSO must be located in close proximity to each pile driving rig during active operation of single or multiple, concurrent driving devices. At least one additional PSO is required at each active driving rig or other location providing best possible view if the Level B harassment zone and shutdown zones cannot reasonably be observed by one PSO.
A draft report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the requested date of issuance of any future IHA for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving days (and associated PSO data sheets), and will also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions and an extrapolated total take estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A final report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report.
As noted previously, NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA (84 FR 64847; November 25, 2019) and solicited public comments on both our proposal to issue the initial IHA for CTJV's construction activities and on the potential for a Renewal IHA, should certain requirements be met.
All public comments were addressed in the notice announcing the issuance of the initial IHA (85 FR 16061; March 20, 2020). Below, we describe how we have addressed, with updated information where appropriate, any comments received that specifically pertain to the Renewal of the initial IHA.
The construction activities proposed by CTJV are identical to (and a subset of) those analyzed in the initial IHA, as are the method of taking and the effects of the action. The planned number of days of activity will be slightly reduced given the completion of a small portion of the originally planned work. The potential effects of CTJV's activities are limited to Level A and Level B harassment in the form of auditory injury and behavioral disturbance. In analyzing the effects of the activities in the initial IHA, NMFS determined that CTJV's activities would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks and that the authorized take numbers of each species or stock were small relative to the relevant stocks (
NMFS has preliminarily concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) CTJV's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and; (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue a Renewal IHA to CTJV for conducting in-water construction activities associated with the PTST in Virginia Beach, Virginia, from the date of issuance for a period of one year, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed and final initial IHA can be found at
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice and request for public comment.
The U.S. Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking (SARSAT) Program, which is managed by NOAA and assisted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Coast Guard, requests input from all interested persons on the U.S. authorization of Return Link Service (RLS) acknowledgment Type 1 capable Cospas-Sarsat 406 MHz distress beacons. Through this Request for Information (RFI), the SARSAT Program seeks the public's views on the inclusion of this optional feature on U.S. country-coded beacons.
Comments must be received by April 30, 2021.
Responses should be submitted via email to
SARSAT Program Analyst, Mr. Allan Knox, NOAA,
The RLS is being provided via the Galileo Global Navigation Satellite System and is designed to provide the beacon user in distress an acknowledgment message informing them that the alert has been detected and located by the Cospas-Sarsat System.
The SARSAT Program has commenced an effort to understand the benefits and associated risks of RLS Type 1 equipped beacons and is soliciting the public through this RFI to obtain input from a wider range of stakeholders, including academia, private industry, beacon users and other relevant organizations and institutions. The public input provided in response to this RFI will help inform the SARSAT Program as it evaluates the authorization of RLS Type 1 equipped beacons within the United States.
In depth information on RLS Type 1 equipped beacons can be found at:
Additional information on RLS-enabled beacons may be viewed at:
Please consider the following questions of interest to the SARSAT Program when responding:
1. Under nominal conditions, the RLS has an inherent period of time between beacon activation and the acknowledgement being received and displayed to the person in distress. This period of time should be within 30 minutes. Is this acceptable? If not, what is an acceptable time?
2. What is the best method to ensure the user understands that there is a period of time before the acknowledgement message is received? Please consider that the user's first interaction with an RLS capable beacon could be an emergency situation where only the beacon is available (no user manual).
3. RLS only indicates that the distress signal has been received, not that rescue forces have been deployed. Therefore, the acknowledgement message is not an indication of when rescue forces may arrive on scene. How should the beacon user be provided this information so that they understand what the RLS signal means? Please consider that the user's first interaction with an RLS capable beacon could be an emergency situation where only the beacon is available (no user manual).
4. There are several RLS related message indications that can be displayed to the beacon user; RLS signal sent from beacon, awaiting RLS signal return, RLS response received, RLS signal not received, etc. Which signals should be displayed to the user and how should they be displayed? Please consider the user's first interaction with an RLS capable beacon could be an emergency situation where only the beacon is available (no user manual).
5. Are there any other features you believe would be advantageous to add to 406 MHz emergency beacons?
6. Are there any other comments you would like the U.S. SARSAT Program to consider?
33 U.S.C. 883(d) and (e).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the
This Authorization is effective from July 16, 2021 through February 15, 2022.
Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
On July 27, 2020, NMFS received an application from WADOT requesting an IHA to take small numbers of six species of marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal associated with the Purdy Bridge Rehabilitation Project. The application was deemed adequate and complete on December 1, 2020. WADOT's request is for take of a small number of each species by Level B harassment. Neither WADOT nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
The purpose of the project is to rehabilitate the 2 in-water support piers of the State Route 302 Purdy Bridge by removing the top 3 inches (7.5 centimeter (cm)) of decaying concrete on each support pier and replacing with fiberglass reinforced concrete. Twenty steel H piles and 44 sheetpiles will be driven to create a caisson-like dewatered structures around the bridge piers to allow the work to be completed. Once the work on the piers is completed the piles will be removed. A needle gun will be used to remove 3 inches (7.5 cm) of decayed concrete from the two in-water bridge piers. Pile driving/removal and concrete removal is expected to take no more than 20 days. Pile driving/removal would be by vibratory pile driving. A detailed description of the planned project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to WADOT was published in the
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the project area and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Pacific or Alaska SARs (
Harbor seal, California sea lion, and Harbor porpoise spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have authorized it. For gray whale, Steller sea lion, and short-beaked common dolphin, occurrence is such that take is possible, and we have authorized it.
Transient killer whales (
The effects of underwater noise from WADOT's construction activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey area. The notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 81886; December 17, 2020) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and the potential effects of underwater noise from the WADOT's construction activities on marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is incorporated by reference into this final IHA determination and is not repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 81886; December 17, 2020).
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic source (
As described previously, no mortality is authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed
The effect of needle guns is unclear as we have not recently authorized take by this method in these circumstances. Given the relatively low source level for needle guns and small ensonified areas discussed below, there is some uncertainty about whether take will occur from this activity. However, in consideration of the applicant's request and the predicted source levels, we conservatively authorize some take for this project.
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Thresholds have also been developed identifying the received level of in-air sound above which exposed pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally harassed.
WADOT's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile-driving and removal in water and needle guns in air) sources, and therefore the 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) threshold is applicable in water and the pinniped thresholds are applicable in air.
These thresholds are provided in Table 2. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project (
Vibratory hammers produce constant sound when operating, and produce vibrations that liquefy the sediment surrounding the pile, allowing it to penetrate to the required seating depth. The actual durations of each installation method vary depending on the type and size of the pile.
In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment sound thresholds for activities being used in this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations to develop source levels or the various pile types, sizes and methods (see Table 3). Source levels for the 48-inch sheetpiles come from the
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate assumption for WADOT's proposed activity in the absence of specific modelling.
Using the equation above, underwater noise is predicted to fall below the behavioral effects threshold of 120 dB rms for marine mammals at distances of 1,000 or 10,000 m depending on the pile type(s) and methods (Table 4). It should be noted that based on the geography of Henderson Bay, sound will not reach the full distance of the Level B harassment isopleths in most directions. In-air needle gun noise is predicted to reach the phocid (harbor seal) threshold (90 dB) at 192 meters (629 feet), and the otariid threshold (100 dB) at 60 meters (200 feet).
When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of overestimate of take by Level A harassment. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as vibratory pile driving or removal using any of the methods discussed above, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet are reported in Table 5 and the resulting isopleths are reported in Table 4 for each of the work scenarios. Note that while the inputs for driving and removal of each type of pile are different, the resulting isopleths are the same because the total time per day (number of piles per day times minutes per pile) of pile driving is identical. Therefore Table 4 includes only a single row for each pile type. The above input scenarios lead to PTS isopleth distances (Level A thresholds) of less than 1 m to 47 m.
The Level A harassment zones identified in Table 4 are based upon an animal exposed to pile driving multiple piles per day. Considering duration of driving or removing each pile (up to 30 minutes) and breaks between pile installations (to reset equipment and move pile into place), this means an animal would have to remain within the small area estimated to be ensonified above the Level A harassment threshold for multiple hours. This is highly unlikely given marine mammal movement throughout the area.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. The main source of density information for the area is the U.S. Navy's database used to establish baseline density estimates for their construction and testing and training activities in Puget Sound (U.S. Navy, 2019). The Navy database includes seasonal estimates of abundance where available and appropriate. Where such estimates existed, we used the larger density estimate for the fall or summer seasons, when this project is scheduled to occur. These density estimates are shown in Table 6. No density estimates exist for the rarer short-beaked common dolphin so we used more qualitative data on observations from The Whale Museum's sightings database and project specific report to WADOT (TWM, 2020).
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate. Given the geography of the project area, the area ensonified when driving or removing H piles is 1.36 square kilometers (km
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2019) estimates the density of gray whales in the Henderson Bay area as 0.000086/km
The total represents less than one gray whale. In the event an individual enters the area and remains for some time and is harassed on multiple days, we are authorizing Level B harassment of 10 gray whales. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and we believe the PSO will be able to effectively monitor the Level A harassment zones, we do not authorize take by Level A harassment of gray whales.
As mentioned above, the Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2019) does not provide an estimate of density of short-beaked common dolphins in the Henderson Bay area. The Whale Museum data indicate that common dolphins have been documented in waters adjacent to the project (TWM, 2020). Nearly all sightings were in 2016 and 2017 pointing out the variability and uncertainty of their presence. Short-beaked common dolphins often occur in groups; for the Puget Sound data groups consisted of no more than five individuals (Orca Network. 2020). Due to the low likelihood of occurrence an expectation of one group of five animals in the large level B harassment zone for sheetpiles per day is a reasonable representation of occurrence. With 9 days of sheetpiling maximum this equates to 45 level B takes. Because of the smaller size of the Level B harassment zones for the H piles, we expect that one group of five animals over the course of the 5 work days with H piles is a reasonable representation of occurrence. We are thus authorizing Level B harassment of 50 short-beaked common dolphins. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and we believe the PSO will be able to effectively monitor the Level A harassment zones, we do not authorize take by Level A harassment of short-beaked common dolphins.
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2019) estimates the density of harbor porpoise in the Henderson Bay area as 0.86/km
We are authorizing Level B harassment of 145 harbor porpoises. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and we believe the PSO will be able to effectively monitor the Level A harassment zones, we do not authorize take by Level A harassment of harbor porpoises.
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2019) estimates the density of California sea lions in the Henderson Bay area as 0.2211/km
We are authorizing Level B harassment of 38 California sea lions. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and we believe the PSO will be able to effectively monitor the Level A harassment zones, we do not authorize take by Level A harassment of California sea lions.
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2019) estimates the density of Steller sea lions in the Henderson Bay area as 0.0478/km
We are authorizing for Level B harassment of nine Steller sea lions. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and we believe the PSO will be able to effectively monitor the Level A harassment zones, we do not authorize take by Level A harassment of Steller sea lions.
The Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Navy 2019) estimates the density of harbor seal in the Henderson Bay area as 3.91/km
We are authorizing for Level B harassment of 658 harbor seals. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and we believe the PSO will be able to effectively monitor the Level A harassment zones, we do not authorize take by Level A harassment of Steller sea lions.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
The following mitigation measures are in the IHA:
• For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving/removal (
• Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all pile driving/removal activity and when new personnel join the work, to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures;
• For those marine mammals for which Level B harassment take has not been requested, in-water pile installation/removal will shut down immediately if such species are observed within or entering the Level B harassment zone; and
• If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized species, pile installation/removal will be stopped as these species approach the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take.
The following mitigation measures would apply to WADOT's in-water construction activities.
•
•
• The placement of Protected Species Observers (PSOs) during all pile driving and removal activities (described in detail in the Monitoring and Reporting section) will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible during pile installation. Should environmental conditions deteriorate such that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone would not be visible (
•
•
• Pile driving or removal must occur during daylight hours.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the Monitoring Plan and section 5 of the IHA. Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving and removal must be conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:
• Independent PSOs (
• Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience; and
• WADOT must submit PSO Curriculum Vitae for approval by NMFS prior to the onset of pile driving.
PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:
• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
Up to four PSOs will be employed. PSO locations will provide an unobstructed view of all water within the shutdown zone, and as much of the Level A and Level B harassment zones as possible. PSO locations are as follows:
(1) At the pile driving/removal site or best vantage point practicable to monitor the shutdown zones and the small area north into Burley Lagoon;
(2) At Purdy Spit Park to monitor the Level B harassment zone near the project site in Henderson Bay; and
(3) For the smaller Level B harassment zone associated with H pile driving/removal, an additional PSOs will be located on the southeast end of the level B harassment zone (see Monitoring Plan Figure 4);
(4) For the larger Level B harassment zone associated with sheetpile driving/removal PSOs will be at the pile/driving removal site and Purdy Spit park as described above. Two additional PSOs will be located further south in Henderson Bay (see Monitoring Plan Figure 2): One at Kopachuck State Park to monitor the southern end of the Level B harassment zone and one further south at Penrose Point State Park to monitor the approaches into Henderson Bay, especially for killer and humpback whales and other large whales not authorized for take.
Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after pile driving/removal activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving or drilling equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report will include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of piles were driven or removed and by what method (
• Weather parameters and water conditions during each monitoring period (
• The number of marine mammals observed, by species, relative to the pile location and if pile driving or removal was occurring at time of sighting;
• Age and sex class, if possible, of all marine mammals observed;
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
• Distances and bearings of each marine mammal observed to the pile being driven or removed for each sighting (if pile driving or removal was occurring at time of sighting);
• Description of any marine mammal behavior patterns during observation, including direction of travel and estimated time spent within the Level A and Level B harassment zones while the source was active;
• Number of individuals of each species (differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring zone, and estimates of number of marine mammals taken, by species (a correction factor may be applied to total take numbers, as appropriate);
• Detailed information about any implementation of any mitigation triggered (
• Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such as ability to track groups or individuals.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, WADOT shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the regional stranding coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, WADOT must immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of the IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS. The report must include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 7, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. There is little information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any of these species or stocks that would lead to a different analysis for this activity. Pile driving activities have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the project activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and removal and needle gun use. Potential takes could occur if individuals are present in the ensonified zone when these activities are underway.
Takes by Level B harassment would be in the form of behavioral disturbance and/or TTS. No mortality or PTS (Level A harassment) is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Mitigation section).
The nature of the pile driving project precludes the likelihood of serious injury or mortality. Take would occur within a limited, confined area (north-central Henderson Bay) of the stock's range. Level A and Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of mitigation measures described herein, and as a result, as discussed above, Level A harassment is not anticipated to occur. Further the amount of take authorized is extremely small when compared to stock abundance.
Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving and needle gun use at the project site, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary. Marine mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any visual cues they are disturbed by activities (as noted during modification to the Kodiak Ferry Dock (see 80 FR 60636, October 7, 2015)) or could become alert, avoid the area, leave the area, or display other mild responses that are not observable such as changes in vocalization patterns. Given the short duration of noise-generating activities per day and that pile driving and removal would occur across three months, any harassment would be temporary. There are no other areas or times of known biological importance for any of the affected species.
In addition, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small, localized area of habitat would have any effect on the fitness of any individual or the stocks' ability to recover. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities will have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality or Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized;
• No biologically important areas have been identified within the project area;
• For all species, Henderson Bay is a very small and peripheral part of their range;
• WADOT would implement mitigation measures such as shut downs and slow removal of piles to minimize turbidity and shaking the pile slightly prior to removal (wake up) to break the bond with surrounding sediment to avoid pulling out large blocks of sediment; and
• Monitoring reports from similar work in Puget Sound have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species impacted by the specified activities.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The amount of take NMFS authorizes is below one third of the estimated stock abundance for all stocks. For harbor seals there are no official estimates of the stock size. We do know the populations of harbor seals in Puget Sound are increasing and number at least 32,000 (Jeffries, 2013). We also know that harbor seals do not generally range over large areas (see above). Therefore, it is most likely that the number of harbor seal takes is a small number. For all stocks, these are all likely conservative estimates of percent of stock taken because they assume all takes are of different individual animals which is likely not the case. Some individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
NMFS has issued an IHA to WADOT for the potential harassment of small numbers of six marine mammal species incidental to the Purdy Bridge Rehabilitation project in Pierce, WA, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements are followed.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS announces a public meeting of the Permanent Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC) on March 18, 2021. Meeting topics are provided under the
The meeting of the PAC will be held via web conference on March 18, 2021, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST) (or until business is concluded). Members of the public may submit written comments on meeting topics or materials; comments must be received by March 13, 2021.
The public meeting will be conducted via conference call. For details on how to call in to the conference line or to submit comments, please contact Emily Reynolds, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; telephone: 808-725-5039; email:
Emily Reynolds, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; telephone: 808-725-5039; facsimile: 808-725-5215; email:
In accordance with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901
The purpose of the March 18, 2021 meeting is to discuss outcomes of the 2020 regular session of the WCPFC (WCPFC17), U.S. priorities leading up to the 2021 regular session of the WCPFC (WCPFC18) and potential management measures for tropical tunas and other issues of interest.
The conference call is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Emily Reynolds at 808-725-5039 by March 4, 2021.
16 U.S.C. 6902
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
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
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
NMFS requires an FFP or FPP for participation in the groundfish fisheries of the exclusive economic zone off Alaska. NMFS issues an EFP to allow groundfish fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited under regulations for groundfish fishing. EFPs are issued to support projects that could benefit the groundfish fisheries and the environment and result in gathering information not otherwise available through research or commercial fishing operations. Regulations governing these permits are at 50 CFR 600.745, 679.4, and 679.6.
Operators of vessels and managers of processors must have a permit on board or on site when fishing, receiving, buying, or processing groundfish and non-groundfish species. The permit information provides harvest gear types; descriptions of vessels, shoreside processors, and stationary floating processors; and expected fishery activity levels. The information requested on the permit applications is used for fisheries management and regulatory compliance by NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS Restricted Access Management Program, NMFS Observer Program, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council.
Section 303(b)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act specifically recognizes the need for permit issuance. Requiring a permit for marine resource users is one of the regulatory steps taken to carry out conservation and management objectives. Permit issuance is essential in fishery resources management for identification of the participants and expected activity levels and for regulatory compliance.
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
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Extension of the comment period.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently sought input from the public regarding the National Council for Expanding American Innovation (NCEAI). The USPTO is extending the comment period to ensure that all stakeholders have sufficient opportunity to submit comments on this important effort to develop a national strategy to expand innovation demographically, geographically, and economically.
To be ensured of consideration, written comments must be received on or before February 23, 2021.
For reasons of Government efficiency, comments must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal website (
Please send your questions or comments regarding this notice to
The USPTO is extending the period for public comment on the NCEAI. The goal of the NCEAI is to create a national strategy to promote and increase participation by underrepresented groups in inventing and innovation. The NCEAI includes distinguished leaders from industry, academia, government, and nonprofit organizations.
In a
Wednesday, February 4, 2021; 10:00 a.m.
This meeting will be conducted by remote means.
Commission Meeting—Closed to the Public.
Decisional Matter.
Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, Division of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 (cell).
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of issuance of Certificate of Alternate Compliance.
The U.S. Navy hereby announces that a Certificate of Alternate Compliance has been issued for USS SAVANNAH (LCS 28). Due to the special construction and purpose of this vessel, the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined it is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot comply fully with the navigation lights provisions of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS) without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this notice is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
This Certificate of Alternate Compliance is effective February 8, 2021 and is applicable beginning February 2, 2021.
Lieutenant Commander Steven Gonzales, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Admiralty Attorney, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Admiralty and Maritime Law Division (Code 11), 1322 Patterson Ave. SE, Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard,
Background and Purpose. Executive Order 11964 of January 19, 1977 and 33 U.S.C. 1605 provide that the requirements of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as to the number, position, range, or arc of visibility of lights or shapes, as well as to the disposition and characteristics of sound-signaling appliances, shall not apply to a vessel or class of vessels of the Navy where the Secretary of the Navy shall find and certify that, by reason of special construction or purpose, it is not possible for such vessel(s) to comply fully with the provisions without interfering with the special function of the vessel(s). Notice of issuance of a Certificate of Alternate Compliance must be made in the
In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, hereby finds and certifies that USS SAVANNAH (LCS 28) is a vessel of special construction or purpose, and that, with respect to the position of the following navigational lights, it is not possible to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS without interfering with the special function of the vessel:
Annex I, paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the vertical position of the forward masthead lights; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the horizontal position of the forward masthead lights; Rule 21(a) and Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to masthead light obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the horizontal separation between the forward and aft masthead lights; Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to vertical and horizontal spacing of task lights; and Rule 27(b)(i) and Annex I, paragraph 9(b), pertaining to the obstruction of task lights.
The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) further finds and certifies that these navigational lights are in closest possible compliance with the applicable provision of the 72 COLREGS.
33 U.S.C. 1605(c), E.O. 11964.
Take notice that on January 29, 2021, pursuant to section 211 of the Federal Power Act
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed an application submitted by Santa Clara Valley Water District for the Anderson Dam Project No. 5737, to draw down the Anderson Reservoir, construct and operate a new low-level outlet tunnel, and implement downstream measures. Anderson Dam is located on Coyote Creek in Santa Clara County, California.
A supplemental environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared as part of Commission staff's review of the proposal.
The supplemental EA may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
ER11-4111-002.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that, on January 22, 2021, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioners.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On January 15, 2021, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6, we hereby notify the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection of the following:
If the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request by the above waiver date, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
Take notice that on January 15, 2021, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, TX 77056-5310, filed an application under section 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization of its Perulack Compressor Units Replacement Project (Project). Texas Eastern seeks authorization to: (1) Abandon and remove four existing compressor units, (2) construct two new compressor units, and (3) construct auxiliary appurtenant facilities at its existing Perulack Compressor Station located in Juniata County, Pennsylvania. The Project is designed to comply with air emission reduction requirements in Pennsylvania and will not create new capacity. Texas Eastern estimates the total cost of the Project to be $135.7 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
Texas Eastern's application states that a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act is required for the project from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The request for certification must be submitted to the certifying agency and to the Commission concurrently. Proof of the certifying agency's receipt date must be filed no later than five (5) days after the request is submitted to the certifying agency.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Lisa A. Connolly, Director, Regulatory, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, by phone at (713) 627-4102, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: You can file comments on the project, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 23, 2021.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before February 23, 2021.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-31-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP21-31-000).
To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-31-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP21-31-000.
To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email at: P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642 or at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
On November 23, 2020, One Drop Hydro, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Manville Dam Project (project), on the Blackstone River in Providence County, Rhode Island. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed settlement agreement and request for public comments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is giving notice of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Crest Rubber Superfund Site in Alliance, Ohio with the following settling parties: Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC; Bridgestone Americas, Inc.; Firestone Polymers, LLC; FSPC Holdco, LLC; Firestone Industrial Products Company, LLC; and Bridgestone Bandag, LLC. The
Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.
The proposed settlement and related documents can be viewed at the Superfund Records Center (SRC-7J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-4465 and on-line at
You may send comments, referencing the Crest Rubber Superfund Site in Alliance, Ohio and identified by Docket ID No. V-W-20-C-012, to the following address:
William Greaves, Superfund & Emergency Management Division (S-6J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.
Thomas Krueger, Office of Regional Counsel (C-14J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Thomas Krueger may be reached by telephone at (312) 886-0562 or via electronic mail at
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Crest Rubber Site in Alliance, Ohio with the following settling parties: Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC; Bridgestone Americas, Inc.; Firestone Polymers, LLC; FSPC Holdco, LLC; Firestone Industrial Products Company, LLC; and Bridgestone Bandag, LLC. EPA completed a removal action at the Site that began on May 15, 2017. The Site is located in an industrial/commercial area and is approximately 3.6 acres in size. The settlement requires the settling parties to pay $1,489,333 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling parties pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a).
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the Settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the Settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the Settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Your comments should be mailed to William Greaves, Superfund & Emergency Management Division (S-6J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590. Be sure to label the comments with the Docket Number at the top of this notice and/or the property name. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the Superfund Records Center.
• Identify the subject of your comments by the docket number and the site name in the title of this notice or the
• Follow directions—the agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree with the terms of the Settlement; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the identified comment period deadline.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice and request for comments.
This action provides public notice and solicits comment on a request by Rohm and Haas Chemicals LLC, a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company (Dow), under the Clean Air Act (CAA), for an alternative means of emission limitation (AMEL) for the Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels, that would apply to a proposed new vinyl acetate bulk storage tank to be used at its chemical plant in Kankakee, Illinois.
Comments must be received on or before March 25, 2021.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0599, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For questions about this action, contact Ms. Angela Carey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2187; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email address:
To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at
If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon publication of this document in the
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to Angela Carey, email address:
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will be posted online at
If you require the services of a translator or a special accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing with the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
The
The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading Room for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via
The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information from the CDC, local area health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
Rohm and Haas is requesting an AMEL for the Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb (40 CFR 60.112b), that would apply to a proposed new vinyl acetate bulk storage tank to be used at its chemical plant in Kankakee, Illinois. In this
Because the new storage tank will be used to store VAM, a volatile organic liquid as defined at 40 CFR 60.111b, it is subject to NSPS subpart Kb. Rohm and Haas is submitting this AMEL request because the proposed tank design does not contain either an external or internal floating roof or a closed vent system and control device that are specified by 40 CFR 60.112b; rather, it is designed to reduce emissions through vapor balancing and pressure containment. Rohm and Haas states that breathing losses will not occur from the proposed new tank because there are no vents and the tank can withstand pressures up to 9 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) before activation of a pressure relief device (PRD). Rohm and Haas further states that the proposed system will control emissions from working losses by complying with the requirements associated with the use of a vapor balancing system in the National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry for Process Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater, 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.
The VOC standards at 40 CFR 60.112b were established as work practice standards pursuant to CAA section 111(h)(1). For standards established according to that provision, CAA section 111(h)(3) allows the EPA to
Rohm and Haas included in its AMEL application information to demonstrate that the proposed bulk storage tank, through its vapor balancing system and pressure containment design, will achieve a reduction in emissions at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions achieved by the VOC standards at 40 CFR 60.112b. Rohm and Haas's AMEL request was submitted on June 17, 2020. For Rohm and Haas's AMEL request, including any supporting materials Rohm and Haas submitted, see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0599.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.114b, Rohm and Haas is seeking an AMEL for the VOC standards set forth at 40 CFR 60.112b for a proposed bulk storage tank to be used at its chemical plant in Kankakee, Illinois. Rohm and Haas's application includes an engineering evaluation to support its request, as required by 40 CFR 60.114b(c).
The information provided by Rohm and Haas states that the proposed new tank is an American Petroleum Institute (API)-620, 160,000 gallon (approximately 600 cubic meter) fixed-roof storage tank used for the storage of VAM. An API-620 specification tank is designed to contain pressures up to 15 psig. According to Rohm and Haas, breathing losses will not occur because there are no vents, and the tank can withstand pressures up to 9 psig before activation of a PRD. Rohm and Haas's engineering evaluation indicates the tank is not expected to exceed these pressures. The published vapor pressure of VAM is 1.72 pounds per square inch (psi) (89.1 millimeters of mercury) at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (°F); however, the EPA defines the maximum true vapor pressure (MTVP) as the vapor pressure of a specific material at the maximum average monthly temperature, which is 74.7 °F and occurs during the month of July in the Kankakee locale. At the specified maximum temperature, using the Antoine equation and appropriate coefficients, the MTVP of vinyl acetate was estimated to be 2.09 psi, which is well below the 9 psig rupture disk and PRD settings for the proposed tank. Therefore, PRDs will be designed to open only in emergency instances (
The PRDs will consist of two pressure relief assemblies. The primary assembly will include in series a rupture disk, a pressure indicator, and a pressure relief valve (PRV). The rupture disk and PRV will both be set at 9 psig. The purpose of this assembly is to provide early controlled remediation in case of fire/polymerization/over-pressurization. Because the PRV is downstream of the rupture disk, the design will allow the assembly to return to its closed position once the pressure release event ends. The secondary pressure relief assembly will consist of a rupture disk set at 13 psig, followed by a pressure indicator. This assembly is designed to contain extreme fire/polymerization in the event the first assembly is unable to do so. In such event, the rupture disk will vent to protect against vessel rupture.
To demonstrate that the PRV does not open, the tank vapor space pressure and the space between the rupture disk and PRV will be continuously monitored for pressure and recorded. If a release occurs, a new rupture disk will be installed, and the corresponding PRV will be reseated properly. This PRV will be checked quarterly to ensure the PRV is seated properly using EPA Method 21 following 40 CFR 63.119(g)(5)(i), part of the vapor balancing provisions in NESHAP subpart G (40 CFR 63.119(g)). In the event that a PRV opens, this would qualify as an excess emission event and must be reported on the semiannual compliance report. If designed and operated as described above, there will not be any emission events, therefore, this alternative is equivalent with the standard.
No PRD on the storage tank, railcar, or tank truck is expected to open during loading or as a result of diurnal temperature changes (breathing losses). During filling of the tank, any displaced vapors will be collected and routed through the vapor balancing line. There are no PRDs associated with the vapor balancing line itself, and the PRDs on the railcar are set at 165 psig and tank trucks are set between 25 to 50 psig to prevent an opening of a PRD while the vessel is being unloaded.
The tank will also be equipped with a vacuum relief system that will be used when VAM is transferred to the process area, and both the vacuum relief system and a vapor balance system will be used when VAM is added to the tank. The vacuum relief system only serves to allow ambient air into the tank's head space to equalize pressure decreases as material is removed. The vapor balance system operation collects and contains vapors discharged during tank filling operations.
In its request, Rohm and Haas states that the proposed tank would comply with the vapor balancing requirements in NESHAP subpart G, 40 CFR 63.119(g) to confirm proper vapor balancing.
The facility unloads VAM from tank trucks or railcars, which are connected to the tank system's vapor balance system. The Kankakee facility's bulk unloading Standard Operating Procedure requires that each U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)-specification tank truck or railcar containing vinyl acetate be inspected to verify that its DOT qualification inspections and tests are current. VAM will be unloaded only from tank trucks or railcars which are connected to the tank system's vapor balance system.
The site will require that railcars and tank trucks that deliver VAM will be reloaded or cleaned only at facilities which utilize the control techniques specified at 40 CFR 63.119(g)(6)(i) or (ii) of NESHAP subpart G. The site will mandate that each railcar or tank truck is connected to a closed-vent system with a control device that reduces inlet emissions of HAP by 95 percent by weight or greater.
The Kankakee facility will request, maintain, and submit to the Administrator a written certification from the VAM supplier that each supplier's current reloading or cleaning facility meets the above requirements. If the supplier(s) of the VAM changes in the future, the Kankakee facility will obtain a written certification that the new supplier(s) meet these requirements.
Rohm and Haas believes that this tank, as designed and operated, will
Based upon our review of the AMEL request, we believe that, by complying with the operating conditions specified below, the proposed new tank at Dow's Rohm and Haas Chemicals LLC facility will achieve emission reductions at least equivalent to reduction in emissions required by NSPS subpart Kb, 40 CFR 60.112b. We are seeking the public's input on this request. Specifically, the EPA seeks the public's input on the conditions specified in this document in the following paragraphs.
(1) No PRD on the storage tank, or on the railcar or tank truck, shall open during loading or as a result of diurnal temperature changes (breathing losses).
(2) Both PRDs on the storage tank must be set to release at no less than 9 psig at all times. Any release from a PRD as indicated by pressure reading greater than 9 psig is an excess emissions event. To demonstrate that the PRD does not open, the tank vapor space pressure and the space between the rupture disk and PRD will be continuously monitored for pressure and recorded. If a release occurs, the tank must follow 40 CFR 63.165(d)(2).
(3) Each of the PRDs and components of the vapor collection system on the tank must be monitored on a quarterly basis, using EPA Method 21. An instrument reading of 500 parts per million by volume or greater is an excess emissions event.
(4) VAM must be transferred from either railcars or truck trailers via welded steel piping into the new bulk storage tank. The tank must be equipped with a welded steel vapor balance line that returns displaced vinyl acetate vapors from the headspace within the tank to the railcar or tank truck during tank filling operations. The vapor balance line must be hard piped from the tank, crossing a pipe bridge, before terminating at the off-loading station. The tank vapor balance line must not contain any PRDs or release points. Displaced vapors must be transferred to a vapor return fitting on the offloading bulk vehicle through a hose from the offloading station. Both the transfer hoses and the vapor balance return line must incorporate dry-disconnect fittings to prevent vapor discharge to the atmosphere when the line is not connected. Tank trucks and railcars must have a current certification in accordance with the DOT pressure test requirements of 49 CFR part 180 for tank trucks and 49 CFR 173.31 for railcars. Railcars, tank trucks, or barges that deliver VAM to a storage tank must be reloaded or cleaned at a facility that utilizes the control techniques specified in paragraph (4)(a) or (b).
(a) The railcar, tank truck, or barge must be connected to a closed-vent system with a control device that reduces inlet emissions of VAM by 95 percent by weight or greater.
(b) A vapor balancing system designed and operated to collect organic VAM vapor displaced from the tank truck or railcar during reloading must be used to route the collected HAP vapor to the storage tank from which the liquid being transferred originated.
(5) Rohm and Haas must submit to the Administrator a written certification that the reloading or cleaning facility meets the requirements of paragraph 4; and the requirements for closed vent system and control device specified at 40 CFR 63.119 through 63.123. The notification and reporting requirements at 40 CFR 63.122 do not apply to the owner or operator of the offsite cleaning or reloading facility.
(6) Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) The facility must keep a record of the equipment to be used and the procedures to be followed when reloading the railcar, tank truck, or barge and displacing vapors to the storage tank from which the liquid originates, as well as a record of all components of the PRDs, including PRVs and rupture disks.
(b) Records must be kept as long as the storage vessel is in operation.
(7) Reporting requirements. The facility must submit excess emissions and monitoring systems performance reports to the Administrator semiannually. All reports must be postmarked by the 30th day following the end of each 6-month period. Written reports of excess emissions must include the following information:
(a) The date and time of commencement and completion of each time period of excess emissions. The process operating time during the reporting period.
(b) The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous monitoring system was inoperative except for zero and span checks and the nature of the system repairs or adjustments.
(c) The report must include a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the volume of VAM emitted, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(d) When the continuous pressure monitoring systems have not been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted, such information shall be stated in the report.
We solicit comments on all aspects of Rohm and Haas's requests for approval of an AMEL for these new requirements to be used to comply with the applicable standards. We specifically seek comment regarding whether or not the operating requirements listed in section III above will achieve emission reductions at least equivalent to emissions being controlled by complying with the applicable requirements in the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels requirements in 40 CFR 60.112b.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in the
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the PMNs addressed in this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0271, is available at
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit
This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after review of notices submitted under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA during the period from September 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019.
TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a TSCA section 5(a) notice and make one of the following specific findings:
○ The chemical substance or significant new use presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;
○ The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the chemical substance or significant new use;
○ The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects and the chemical substance or significant new use may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;
○ The chemical substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and such substance either enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure to the substance; or
○ The chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
Unreasonable risk findings must be made without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant under the conditions of use. The term “conditions of use” is defined in TSCA section 3 to mean “the circumstances, as determined by the Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.”
EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to publish in the
Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture of the new chemical substance or before engaging in the significant new use.
The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding of “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding any remaining portion of the applicable review period.
In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which, during this period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:
○ EPA case number assigned to the TSCA section 5(a) notice.
○ Chemical identity (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
○ Website address to EPA's decision document describing the basis of the “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” finding made by EPA under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
This notice announces the broadly applicable alternative test method approval decisions that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made under and in support of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. This notice also announces the removal of a previously approved broadly applicable alternative test method.
An electronic copy of each alternative test method approval document is available at
This notice will be of interest to entities regulated under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 59, 60, 61, 63 and 65; state, local, and tribal agencies; and the EPA Regional offices responsible for implementation and enforcement of regulations under 40 CFR parts 59, 60, 61, 63, and 65.
You may access copies of the broadly applicable alternative test method approval documents at
This notice identifies broadly applicable alternative test methods that the EPA approved in 2020 under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), 40 CFR part 60, and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) programs, 40 CFR parts 61 and 63. See Table 1 of this notice for the summary of these test methods. Source owners and operators may voluntarily use these broadly applicable alternative test methods in lieu of otherwise required test methods or related testing procedures. Use of these broadly applicable alternative test methods are not intended to and should not change the applicable emission standards. This notice also announces the removal of ALT-109 as an approved broadly applicable alternative test method given our subsequent revisions to certain requirements in Method 22. 83 FR 56713 (November 14, 2018).
The Administrator has the authority to approve the use of alternative test methods for compliance with requirements under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. This authority is found in 40 CFR 60.8(b)(3), 61.13(h)(1)(ii), and 63.7(e)(2)(ii). Additional and similar authority can be found in 40 CFR 59.104(f) and 65.158(a)(2). The criteria for approval and procedures for submission and review of broadly applicable alternative test methods are explained in a previous
As also explained in the January 30, 2007 notice, our approval decisions involve thorough technical reviews of numerous source-specific requests for alternatives and modifications to test methods and procedures. Based on these reviews, we have often found that these modifications or alternatives would be equally valid and appropriate to apply to other sources within a particular class, category, or subcategory. Consequently, we have concluded that where a method modification or an alternative method is clearly broadly applicable to a class, category, or subcategory of sources, it is both equitable and efficient to simultaneously approve its use for all appropriate sources and situations.
Use of approved alternative test methods are not mandatory but rather permissive. Sources are not required to employ such a method but may choose to do so in appropriate circumstances. As specified in 40 CFR 63.7(f)(5), however, a source owner or operator electing to use an alternative method for 40 CFR part 63 standards must continue to use the alternative method until otherwise authorized. Source owners or operators should, therefore, review the specific broadly applicable alternative method approval decision at
This notice specifies four broadly applicable alternative test methods that the EPA approved between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. The alternative method decision letter/memo designation numbers, test methods affected, sources allowed to use this alternative, and method modifications or alternative methods allowed are summarized in Table 1 of this notice. A summary of approval documents was previously made available on our Technology Transfer Network between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. For more detailed information, please refer to the complete copies of these approval documents available at
As also explained in our January 30, 2007 notice, we will revisit approvals of alternative test methods in response to written requests or objections indicating that a particular approved alternative test method either should not be broadly applicable or that its use is not appropriate or should be limited in some way. Any objection to a broadly applicable alternative test method, as well as the resolution of that objection, will be announced at
This notice also announces our removal of ALT-109 as a broadly applicable alternative test method from the Broadly Applicable Approved Alternative Test Methods web page. In the February 10, 2016
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Section 5(g) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in the
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the PMNs addressed in this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0271, is available at
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit
This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after review of notices submitted under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA during the period from August 1, 2019 to August 31, 2019.
TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a TSCA section 5(a) notice and make one of the following specific findings:
• The chemical substance or significant new use presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;
• The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the chemical substance or significant new use;
• The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects and the chemical substance or significant new use may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;
• The chemical substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and such substance either enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure to the substance; or
• The chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
Unreasonable risk findings must be made without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant under the conditions of use. The term “conditions of use” is defined in TSCA section 3 to mean “the circumstances, as determined by the Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.”
EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to publish in the
Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture or engaging in the significant new use.
The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding of “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding any remaining portion of the applicable review period.
In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which, during this period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:
• EPA case number assigned to the TSCA section 5(a) notice.
• Chemical identity (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Website link to EPA's decision document describing the basis of the “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” finding made by EPA under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C).
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number and the File Symbol of the EPA registration number of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit
Marietta Echeverria, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
1.
2.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is requesting comment on applications from Nissan North America, Inc., (Nissan) for off-cycle carbon dioxide (CO
Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.
Submit your comments referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2019-0588, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
David Wright, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (734) 214-4467. Fax: (734) 214-4869. Email address:
EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) program provides three pathways by which a manufacturer may accrue off-cycle carbon dioxide (CO
Under the regulations, a manufacturer seeking to demonstrate off-cycle credits with an alternative methodology (
• Use modeling, on-road testing, on-road data collection, or other approved analytical or engineering methods;
• Be robust, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the real-world emissions benefit with strong statistical significance;
• Result in a demonstration of baseline and controlled emissions over a wide range of driving conditions and number of vehicles such that issues of data uncertainty are minimized;
• Result in data on a model type basis unless the manufacturer demonstrates that another basis is appropriate and adequate.
Further, the regulations specify the following requirements regarding an application for off-cycle CO
• A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must develop a methodology for demonstrating and determining the benefit of the off-cycle technology, and carry out any necessary testing and analysis required to support that methodology.
• A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must conduct testing and/or prepare engineering analyses that demonstrate the in-use durability of the technology for the full useful life of the vehicle.
• The application must contain a detailed description of the off-cycle technology and how it functions to reduce CO
• The application must contain a list of the vehicle model(s) which will be equipped with the technology.
• The application must contain a detailed description of the test vehicles selected and an engineering analysis that supports the selection of those vehicles for testing.
• The application must contain all testing and/or simulation data required under the regulations, plus any other data the manufacturer has considered in the analysis.
Finally, the alternative methodology must be approved by EPA prior to the manufacturer using it to generate credits. As part of the review process defined by regulation, the alternative methodology submitted to EPA for consideration must be made available for public comment.
Using the alternative methodology approach discussed above, Nissan is applying for credits for model years 2017 and later. Nissan has applied for off-cycle credits using the alternative demonstration methodology pathway for the low-power-consumption clutch technology. The application covers 2017 model year and later vehicles. The methodologies described by Nissan are generally consistent with those used by other manufacturers to determine similar credit values. The requested credit value is 0.3 grams CO2/mile.
EPA has reviewed the applications for completeness and is now making the applications available for public review and comment as required by the regulations. The off-cycle credit applications submitted by Nissan (with confidential business information redacted) have been placed in the public docket (see
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit
Charles Smith, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications. For actions being evaluated under EPA's public participation process for registration actions, there will be an additional opportunity for public comment on the proposed decisions. Please see EPA's public participation website for additional information on this process (
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the below listed Information Collection Requests (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. These are proposed extensions of the currently approved ICRs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2021.
Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID numbers provided for each item in the text, online using
Mr. Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0833; 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 section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
(43)
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The collection provides EXIM staff with the information necessary to monitor the borrower's payments for exported goods covered under its short and medium-term export credit insurance policies. It also alerts EXIM staff of defaults, so they can manage the portfolio in an informed manner.
Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is seeking public comment on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance for information collection
Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2021.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Jock K. Chung, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2984.
As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Wool Rules.
Staff's burden estimates for the Wool Rules are based on data from the Department of Commerce's Bureau of the Census, the International Trade Commission, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and data or other input from the main industry association, the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA), and from
Staff believes
Pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of maintaining records and providing disclosures to consumers. All comments must be received on or before April 9, 2021.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 9, 2021. Write “Wool Rules; PRA Comment: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
Due to the public health emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak and the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Wool Rules; PRA Comment: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will become publicly available at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before April 9, 2021. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Government Accountability Office.
Notice of modified system of records.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) proposes to revise its system of personnel records under its privacy regulations, Privacy Procedures for Personnel Records. This system of records encompasses records collected, maintained, used and disseminated in the course of conducting GAO human capital management activities. Further, this notice is intended to notify individuals about personally identifiable information (PII) maintained in this system of records and the manner in which that information is maintained and protected.
Comments may be submitted on or before March 10, 2021. Unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination, this revised system of records will become effective thereafter.
Comments should be sent to: Government Accountability Office, Chief Agency Privacy Officer, Room 1127, 441 G St. NW, Washington, DC 20548, or by email to
For information about the management of personally identifiable information (PII) maintained in this system of records, contact Sonya R. Johnson, Records and Privacy Office, Infrastructure Operations, Government Accountability Office, Room 1127, 441 G St. NW, Washington, DC 20548; 202-512-9576; email,
A.
GAO's regulations at 4 CFR part 83, Privacy Procedures for Personnel Records, provide the basis for this notice.
B.
GAO Human Capital Management information is also maintained and managed in systems of records operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (hereafter shared service providers), and by contractors supporting these agencies. USDA's National Finance Center (NFC) provides payroll processing-related services. Treasury operates an automated human resources system, HRConnect, to support human capital management activities in Treasury and other Federal agencies through cross-servicing agreements.
Authorized GAO employees access human capital information maintained in GAO systems and in systems maintained by GAO's shared service providers and their contractors. Information is securely transmitted to and from GAO and its shared service providers and their contractors as necessary to support agreed-upon human capital management activities (
Privacy protections for GAO information maintained by contractors of shared service providers are provided under contracts between the shared service providers and their contractors. Privacy risks, and steps taken to mitigate such risks, associated with the use of information systems to collect, maintain, and disseminate this information have been evaluated in privacy impact assessments conducted by both GAO and the applicable shared service provider. The text of GAO's human capital management system of records is set forth below.
For a description of the protections provided by USDA/NFC and Treasury, see the following: Treasury Privacy Act System of Records Notice, 81 FR 78266; USDA/NFC Privacy Act System of Records Notice, USDA/OP-1; OPM Privacy Act System of Records Notice for General Personnel Records, 77 FR 73694.
Government Accountability Office, Human Capital Management System of Records.
This system of records contains no classified information.
Information maintained in this system of records is located at GAO headquarters in Washington, DC, and GAO field offices. Major service providers and their systems are: USDA's National Finance Center (NFC), which provides payroll processing-related services; and the Treasury-operated HRConnect, which is an automated human resources system that supports Federal human capital management activities. GAO human capital information maintained by contractors of those shared service providers is maintained at information processing facilities under the control of those contractors.
The GAO official responsible for this system of records is the Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Room 1193, 441 G St. NW, Washington, DC, 20548.
Section 711 of title 31, United States Code; General Authority of the Comptroller General, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
The system of records contains PII concerning:
(a) Individuals who are or have been employed by GAO (including interns, consultants, volunteers, and reemployed annuitants), individuals who have applied for employment by GAO; and
(b) Family members or other individuals who have been identified for personnel records purposes by an individual otherwise covered by this system of records.
Categories of records in this system include:
(a) Biographic/identifying information (
(b) Other information about an individual (
These records are maintained for identification and data analysis purposes. The information in this system of records generally originates from the individual or the individual's current or previous agency or organization of employment.
The information is collected through various means, including but not limited to: Directly by GAO staff via interviews, reports, sign-in sheets, or forms; extracted from other GAO systems or systems maintained by third parties, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center; or created through audio, photographic, or video recording.
The purpose of this system of records is to maintain records that are relevant and necessary to ensure GAO personnel, information, property, and assets receive an appropriate level of protection.
The purpose of this system of records is to maintain records as are relevant and necessary to efficiently and effectively manage human capital functions such as hiring and separation of employees; pay, benefits, and performance; employee relations; and telework applications.
PII in this system of records may be disclosed, as permitted by 4 CFR part 83 to those GAO employees and contractors who have a need for the record in the performance of their official duties that is consistent with the purpose of the use of the information as described in this notice. In addition, PII in this system of records may be otherwise disclosed under the following circumstances as a use consistent with the specified purpose of the use of the information identified in this notice:
(a) Information from this system of records may be disclosed to other Federal agencies, such as General Services Administration, Office of Personnel Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Department of Transportation; and
(b) Information from this system of records may be released to the public in response to a request for records under 4 CFR part 81, Public Availability of GAO Records (similar to provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, which applies to executive branch agencies).
Records released under 4 CFR part 81 may be exempted from public release as information the release of which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, or is otherwise confidential or covered by a legal privilege (4 CFR 81.6). Further, to the extent the requested information is contained in records originating in another agency or nonfederal organization, the requester will be referred to such agency or organization, and GAO will not release the records (4 CFR 81.5).
For other permitted disclosures of PII in this system of records, see 4 CFR 83.5.
Information maintained in this system of records may be retrieved only by employees of GAO who have a need for the information in the performance of their official duties. Information is retrieved primarily by the individual's name and/or Social Security number, in combination with any other biographical identifier such as date of birth.
In accordance with GAO record retention schedule, the majority of records in this system of records are administrative in nature and must be destroyed or deleted after seven years. Official Personnel Folders (OPFs) are retained pursuant to GAO's Records Schedule 1.1, NARA General Records Schedule 2.2, and 4 CFR 83.11—Official Personnel Folder. Certain transitory records are destroyed when no longer needed for business purposes. Compelling legal or policy purposes (
Pursuant to 4 CFR part 83, information maintained in this system of records is safeguarded under GAO information systems security policies and procedures which are consistent with the requirements of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and related National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards and guidelines, approved for the processing of controlled unclassified information (CUI). Strict controls are imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information maintained in this system of records and any of its supporting information systems. Any information maintained by external service providers, including the FBI and USDA, is protected under memorandums of understanding (MOUs), contracts, and other agreements with those providers. Physical security protections are required for handling any information maintained in paper formats or otherwise removed from the GAO network.
Individuals interested in knowing whether this system of records contains information about them, how to obtain access to such information, or how to contest any element of such information may submit a request in writing to the Chief Agency Privacy Officer, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Room 1137, 441 G St. NW, Washington, DC 20548, or by email to
Records contained in this system of records may be exempt from access, amendment, and other procedural requirements to the extent 4 CFR 83.21 applies to such records.
86 FR 8645, February 8, 2021.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled, “Drug Overdose Response Investigation (DORI) Data Collections” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on August 13,2020 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Drug Overdose Response Investigation (DORI) Data Collections (OMB Control No. 0920-1054, Exp. 03/31/2021)—Extension—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In 2015, CDC received OMB approval (OMB Control No. 0920-1054) for this Generic clearance for a three-year period to collect information to response to urgent requests from state and local health authorities to provide epidemiological information that allows for the selection of interventions to curb local epidemics of drug overdose. CDC seeks OMB approval for an Extension of this Generic clearance for a three-year period.
Drug Overdose Response Investigations (DORI) are to be conducted in response to urgent requests from state and local health authorities to provide epidemiological information that allows for the selection of interventions to curb local epidemics of drug overdose. Of particular interest is response to increasing trends in, or changing characteristics of, overdose from prescription drugs (with a special interest in opioid analgesics such as oxycodone or methadone; benzodiazepines such as alprazolam) and/or illicit drugs (
Generic clearance is requested to ensure that timely information is collected during a DORI, which allows NCIPC to maintain critical mission function by working with state and local health authorities to protect the public's health. During an unanticipated rise in nonfatal or fatal drug overdose where the substances responsible for the health event need to be identified, drivers and risk factors are undetermined, and/or subgroups at risk need to be identified, immediate action by CDC is necessary to minimize or prevent public harm. CDC must have the ability to rapidly deploy data collection tools to understand the scope of the problem and determine appropriate action. Procedures for each investigation, including specific data collection plans, depend on the time and resources available, number of persons involved, and other circumstances unique to the urgent conditions at hand. Data are collected by epidemiologists, psychologists, medical professionals, subject matter experts, and biostatisticians.
Data collected during a DORI are used to understand sudden increases in drug use and misuse associated with fatal and nonfatal overdoses, understand the drivers and risk factors associated with those trends, and identify the groups most affected. This allows CDC to effectively advise states on actions that could be taken to control the local epidemic. During a DORI, data are collected once, with the rare need for follow-up. The estimated annual burden hours are 2000, there are no costs to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Availability, Use, and Public Health Impact of Emergency Supply Kits among Disaster-Affected Populations” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on August 28, 2020 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Availability, Use, and Public Health Impact of Emergency Supply Kits among Disaster-Affected Populations—New—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) is submitting a New Information Collection Request (ICR), for two-year approval. NCEH will conduct this cross-sectional study among two disaster-affected populations, at one site per year. NCEH will select geographic sites (
An all-of-society approach to disaster risk reduction emphasizes inclusion and engagement in preparedness activities. A common recommendation is to promote household preparedness through the preparation of an emergency supply kit that can be used to shelter-in-place or during evacuation. Lack of household preparedness is a public health concern, especially in medically frail populations, because it consumes first responders' time, taking them away from relief and recovery efforts, and can easily deplete community health resources. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) states that individuals or households are prepared for a disaster if they have thought about and planned for the types of disaster for which they are at most risk, have developed a family communication and evacuation plan in the event of a disaster, and have assembled a complete disaster (emergency) supply kit. However, the prevalence of emergency supply kits across households in the United States ranges considerably from a community-level low of 10% to a regional high of 68%. This lack and variation of emergency supply kits across households makes household disaster preparedness a public health concern.
Self-sufficiency (defined as the ability to shelter-in-place without needing to leave your home or call for outside assistance for ~3 days following a disaster) can help reduce the demands placed on first responders during critical times, which has downstream public health impacts. Among persons with an existing physical or mental health condition at the time of the disaster, having an adequate supply of prescription and over-the-counter medications and medical supplies allows people to maintain treatment and prevent worsening or exacerbation of their existing condition or illness. It also can reduce their need for emergency medical services following a disaster. The FEMA definition of an emergency supply kit is one that can sustain each member of a household with food, water, and medication for up to three days. However, there are several knowledge gaps and challenges related to emergency supply kit use and effectiveness, including whether the current recommendations are adequate or need expansion. We identified the following gaps:
This general lack of research on the efficacy and use of emergency supply kits impedes our ability to make data-driven recommendations regarding emergency supply kit promotion. The cross-sectional disaster survey and focus group(s) on the public's knowledge, preparedness, and use of emergency supply kits will identify and inform public health officials about the most useful items to include in an emergency supply kit, ideally across two different types of disasters.
Survey participants will be selected via address-based sampling in the defined geographic area impacted by the disaster and given the choice to complete the survey via paper (
The estimated annualized burden is 384 hours. The estimated burden is based on conducting the survey at one site per year, taking 15 minutes per respondent via the web or 30 minutes via paper survey, and up to two focus groups in each site taking approximately five minutes for the focus group screener and two hours for the focus group. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “COVID-19 Pandemic Response, Laboratory Data Reporting” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on June 5th, 2020 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received two comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
COVID-19 Pandemic Response, Laboratory Data Reporting—New—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Efforts are underway to ensure that laboratory data—including diagnostic viral testing data and serologic testing data—are comprehensive and readily available from laboratories and other facilities providing testing, including point-of-care (POC) testing sites for the public health response to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.
Ensuring a rapid and thorough public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates comprehensive laboratory testing data. These data contribute to understanding disease incidence and trends: Initiating epidemiologic case investigations, assisting with contact tracing, assessing availability and use of testing resources, and identifying supply chain issues for reagents and other material. Laboratory testing data, in conjunction with case reports and other data, also provide vital guidance for mitigation and control activities. The total estimated annualized burden is 65,936 hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Medical Monitoring Project Facility Survey to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on June 2, 2020 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Medical Monitoring Project Facility Survey—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requests a one year approval for a new information collection, “Medical Monitoring Project (MMP) Facility Survey.” The primary objective of the MMP Facility Survey will be to conduct a one-time survey of the characteristics of HIV care facilities in order to collect information on the nation's existing HIV care infrastructure and the capacity of facilities to implement the strategies of the U.S. Ending the HIV Epidemic federal initiative. CDC will also use the findings to guide national and local HIV prevention and care efforts and identify gaps as part of the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention's Strategic Plan. Specifically, information is needed about the capacity of care facilities to deliver care and prevention services, provide HIV prevention messaging, partner with public health programs, offer services for HIV negative partners of HIV positive persons, engage and retain patients, offer PrEP, medication-assisted therapy (MAT), and substance use
The participation of respondents is voluntary. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. Through their participation, respondents will help to improve programs to prevent HIV infection as well as services for those who already have HIV. The total estimated annualized burden is 618 hours.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Assessment of Ill Worker Policies Study” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on September 14, 2020, to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Assessment of Ill Worker Policies Study (OMB Control No. 0920-1227, Exp. 5/31/2021)—Revision—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC is requesting a three-year Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance for a Revision information collection request (ICR) for a research program focused on identifying the environmental causes of foodborne illness and improving environmental public health practice. This research program is conducted by the Environmental Health Specialists Network (EHS-Net), a collaborative project of the CDC, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and eight state and local public health programs (Franklin County, OH; Tennessee; Minnesota; Rhode Island; New York; New York City, NY; Southern Nevada Health District, NV; and Harris County, TX).
This ICR aims to assess whether an educational intervention will result in either the development or enhancement of restaurant ill worker policies. This will be accomplished by interviewing restaurant managers and observing restaurant practices in 320 randomly selected and assigned restaurants in the EHS-Net catchment areas. There will be two or three site visits depending upon which group the restaurants are assigned to, that is, the intervention or the control group. An initial visit will be used to observe baseline conditions and to provide the intervention only to the restaurants selected to receive it. A second visit will be used to determine if the policies have changed and to introduce the intervention to the control restaurants (if it is deemed successful), and a final follow up visit to the control restaurants that received the intervention on the second visit (if they receive the intervention). Initial success for the intervention will be measured by whether three or more intervention restaurants in each EHS-Net catchment area either develop a written ill worker management plan (if they did not have one at the pre-intervention evaluation) or enhanced their policies (
Although approved in 2018, NCEH and its program partners needed to prioritize other data collections over this study, and then delayed the current study due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
NCEH is requesting a revised PRA clearance for 820 responses per year and for a time burden of 261 hours per year. These changes result in a decrease of 1,307 responses and 91 hours per year relative to the 2018 PRA clearance. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by March 10, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Integrative and Clinical Endocrinology and Reproduction Study Section, February 18, 2021, 09:00 a.m. to February 19, 2021, 07:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This notice is being amended to change the meeting date from 2/18/2021—2/19/2021 to 2/18/2021. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Janet M. Golrick, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to submitter, Nacheshia Foxx, who is the Federal Register Liaison for HUD, for purposes of publication in the
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on January 4, 2021, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Ericsson Inc. of Plano, Texas; Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of Sweden; and Ericsson AB of Sweden. Supplements were filed on January 5, 8, 12, 14, 21, and 27, 2021. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic devices with wireless connectivity, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,151,430 (“the '430 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,879,849 (“the '849 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,286,823 (“the '823 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,313,178 (“the '178 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Katherine Hiner, Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 13, 16-18, 20, and 21 of the '430; claims 1, 2, and 12-14 of the '849; claims 8-20 of the '823 patent; and claims 1-4, 7-10, and 16-19 of the '178 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “electronic devices with wireless connectivity, specifically mobile phones, tablet computers, and smart televisions”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party to this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainants of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
On January, 29, 2021, the United States lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the lawsuit entitled
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer
During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $17 (68 pages at 25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the appendices and signature pages, the cost is $8.5.
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in
This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Defendant Brenda Massey, pursuant to Sections 309, 402, and 404 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1319, 1342, and 1344, for discharging pollutants into waters of the United States in George County, Mississippi without a permit, in violation of CWA Section 301(a), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). The proposed Consent Decree resolves injunctive claims for relief by requiring the Defendant to perform environmental restoration and provide for mitigation of temporal losses through a monetary payment to an approved mitigation bank.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Michael Augustini, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611,
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division, Dan M. Russell, Jr., United States Courthouse, 2012 15th Street, Suite 403, Gulfport, MS 39501. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of public roundtables.
The U.S. Copyright Office will be holding public roundtables as part of its study to evaluate best practices that the newly established mechanical licensing collective may implement to identify and locate musical work copyright owners and unclaimed accrued royalties held by the collective, encourage musical work copyright owners to claim their royalties, and reduce the incidence of unclaimed royalties. Music industry participants and others interested in participating in the roundtables are invited to submit requests to participate pursuant to the instructions set forth below.
The public roundtables will be held on March 25, 2021. Requests to participate must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on February 26, 2021. Once the roundtable agenda is finalized, the Office will notify all participants and post the times and dates of the roundtables at
The Office will conduct the roundtables remotely using the Zoom videoconferencing platform. Requests to participate should be submitted through the request form available at
Jason E. Sloan, Assistant General Counsel, by email at
The U.S. Copyright Office (“Office”) is undertaking a policy study as directed by the Music Modernization Act to evaluate best practices that the newly established mechanical licensing collective (“MLC”) may implement to reduce the incidence of unclaimed royalties. The Office initiated the study on December 6, 2019, with an all-day educational symposium to facilitate discussion on these issues by a broad range of industry participants and members of the public.
The Office will now hold roundtable discussions to allow interested members of the public to discuss and provide additional information on the topics of the study. The Office also will provide sign-up information for members of the public who wish to observe, but not participate in, one or more of the roundtable sessions. The sessions will be video recorded and transcribed, and copies of the recording and transcript will be made available on the Office's website.
A request to participate should be submitted to the Office using the form on the Office's website indicated in the
The public roundtables will offer an opportunity for interested parties to comment on the information submitted to the Office to date and offer additional views concerning the best practices the MLC may implement to reduce the incidence of unclaimed royalties. While the Office will tailor sessions based on expressions of interest, it expects that sessions will address various issues related to data matching and identification of musical work copyright owners; user experience and accessibility of the public database and claiming portal; education and outreach to promote awareness and encourage royalty claiming; and holding and distribution of accrued royalties. Although the primary focus of the statutorily-mandated study must remain on best practices the Office may recommend for the MLC to consider in order to reduce the overall incidence of unclaimed accrued royalties, the Office will also entertain discussion of how other actors in the music ecosystem may support the successful administration of the section 115 blanket license.
All requests to participate must clearly identify:
• The name of the person desiring to participate;
• The organization or organizations represented, if any;
• Contact information; and
• A two- to three-sentence summary of the substantive issues the participant expects to discuss.
Following receipt of the requests to participate, the Office will prepare an agenda listing the participants, dates, and times for each session. These will be circulated to participants and posted at
Each roundtable session will cover a topic relevant to the study, as discussed above. Depending on the level of interest, the Office may hold multiple sessions on the same topic to accommodate a greater number of participants and provide additional time for discussion. Following a discussion of the various agenda topics by roundtable participants, members of the public will be provided a limited opportunity to offer additional comments for the record, but parties who wish to provide detailed information to the Office are encouraged to submit a request to participate.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Attendance information for the meeting will be forthcoming on the website:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. These meetings will primarily take place at NSF's headquarters, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF
These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “NRC Form 354, Data Report on Spouse.”
Submit comments by March 10, 2021. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0147 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “NRC Form 354, Data Report on Spouse.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of February 8, 15, 22, March 1, 8, 15, 2021.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
The public is invited to attend the Commission's meeting live by webcast at the Web address—
The public is invited to attend the Commission's meeting live by webcast at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 22, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 1, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 8, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 15, 2021.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 13h-1 and Form 13H under Section 13(h) of the Exchange Act established a large trader reporting framework.
The identification, recordkeeping, and reporting framework provides the Commission with a mechanism to identify large traders and obtain additional information on their trading activity. Specifically, the system requires large traders to identify themselves to the Commission and file certain interim updates with the Commission on Form 13H. Upon receipt of Form 13H, the Commission issues a unique identification number to the large trader, which the large trader then provides to its registered broker-dealers. Certain registered broker-dealers are required to maintain transaction records for each large trader, and are required to report that information to the Commission upon request.
The respondents to the collection of information required by Rule 13h-1 and Form 13H are large traders and registered broker-dealers. The Commission estimates that the total annual time burden associated with Rule 13h-1 and Form 13H is approximately 185,200 hours per year. This burden is comprised of 23,500 hours for initial filings by large traders on Form 13H, 58,500 hours for updates by large traders, 96,000 hours for broker-dealer reporting, and 7,200 hours for broker-dealer monitoring.
Compliance with Rule 13h-1 is mandatory. The information collection under proposed Rule 13h-1 is considered confidential subject to the limited exceptions provided by the Freedom of Information Act.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 970NY (Firm Quotes) and Rule 970.1NY (Quote Mitigation) to eliminate the use of dark series on the Exchange. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this rule change is to eliminate the exclusion of inactive or “dark” series (as described below) from the requirements of Rule 970NY (Firm Quotes). In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 970.1NY (Quote Mitigation) in its entirety.
Rule 970NY describes the obligations of the Exchange to collect, process and make available to quotation vendors the best bid and best offer for each option series that is a reported security.
By way of background, Rules 970NY and 970.1NY were adopted over a decade ago in conformance with the NYSE Arca Rule 6.86-O in connection with the Penny Pilot Program, which has since been made permanent.
As discussed further below, the Exchange believes that OPRA has the capacity to accommodate any increase in quote traffic from the Exchange arising from the publication of quotes in “dark series.” As an OPRA participant, the Exchange makes capacity requests to OPRA. Notwithstanding Rule 970.1NY, when the Exchange makes capacity requests to OPRA, it has always factored the total quote traffic it receives from Market Makers, including quotes in dark series.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed discontinuation of its suppression of quotes in dark series would increase transparency and enhance price discovery. Specifically, as proposed, all Market Maker quotes (including in “inactive series” under the current Rule) would be displayed and reflected in the market to the benefit of all market participants who would be on notice of such liquidity. The Exchange also notes that, over the years, certain market participants have expressed confusion regarding what quotes are being published and which are being suppressed. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposal would remove the element of potential confusion among market participants by publishing all quotes (not just those in active series) in the disseminated quote feed.
Importantly, since the adoption of Rule 970.1NY, the Exchange has implemented the following measures that serve as additional safeguards against excessive quoting:
The Exchange believes that these quote mitigation strategies would allow the Exchange to continue to effectively mitigate quote message traffic.
In connection with the foregoing, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of Rule 970NY to delete references to the “Quote Mitigation
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a Trader Update within 60 days of rule approval.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of Rule 970.1NY (and references to quote mitigation in Rule 970NY) would promote just and equitable principles of trade, as well as serve to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because the Exchange's systems capacity is more than sufficient to accommodate any increase in quote traffic to OPRA as a result of the proposed rule change. First, the Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of Rule 970.1NY would promote just and equitable principles of trade, as well as serve to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because the proposed change would increase transparency and enhance price discovery. Specifically, as proposed, all Market Maker quotes (including those in “inactive series” under the current Rule) would be displayed and reflected in the market to the benefit of all market participants who would be on notice of such liquidity. The Exchange also believes that the proposal would remove the element of potential confusion among market participants by publishing all quotes (not just those in active series) in the disseminated quote feed.
In addition, the proposed change would promote just and equitable principles of trade, as well as serve to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because the Exchange's capacity requests already presume that all series are active. Hence, the Exchange believes that the existing capacity planning at OPRA already factors in quotes in dark series being lit and therefore does not believe that the elimination of this rule (and any resulting increase in quote traffic) would have a negative impact on capacity.
The Exchange further believes that the existing quote mitigation strategies (
Importantly, the circumstances giving rise to the NYSE Arca rule that the Exchange copied—industry-wide concern about “capacity issues related to excessive quoting rates”—has subsided given that OPRA capacity has increased exponentially over the last decade coincident with the influx of new options exchanges. In addition, the proposed increase in quote traffic as a result of this proposal is minimal and therefore unlikely to adversely impact the flow of message traffic and/or harm downstream consumers of OPRA data. As noted above, the increase in quotes message traffic in dark series is already considered in the Exchange's capacity requests to OPRA and already published to downstream users of OPRA data. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed change would not impede the protection of investors and the public interest.
Thus, the Exchange believes there is sufficient capacity at OPRA to accommodate any additional quote traffic that will result from elimination of dark series. The Exchange therefore believes that its proposal will not impact the protection of investors and the public interest.
Finally, as discussed above, the Exchange does not anticipate that its proposal would negatively impact systems capacity. However, to the extent it does, the Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any incremental additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that any increase in quote traffic that might be sent to OPRA as a result of the proposed rule change would be minimal and should not impact any other exchange's capacity at OPRA. The Exchange likewise believes that there would be no adverse impact on any downstream consumers of OPRA data given that any increase in quote traffic would be minimal and has already been included in the Exchange's capacity planning requests to OPRA.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send 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.
86 FR 7759, February 1, 2021.
Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges and the NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges (together, the “Fee Schedules”) related to co-location services to add two Partial Cabinet Solution bundles. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedules related to co-location
The Fee Schedules currently list four PCS bundles, Options A through D. As originally formulated, each PCS bundle option included a partial cabinet powered to a maximum of 2 kilowatts (“kW”); access to the liquidity center network (“LCN”) and internet protocol (“IP”) networks, the local area networks available in the data center; two fiber cross connections; and connectivity to one of two time feeds.
In May 2020, the Exchange amended PCS bundle Options C and D to each include two 10 Gb connections to the NMS Network, an alternate dedicated network connection that Users could use to access the NMS feeds for which the Securities Industry Automation Corporation (“SIAC”) is engaged as the securities information processor (“SIP”).
In response to customer interest, the Exchange now proposes to add two new PCS bundles to the Fee Schedules. Proposed Options E and F would be substantially similar to Options C and D, respectively, with the difference that each connection included in the proposed bundles would be upgraded to 40 Gb from 10 Gb: That is, proposed Options E and F would include a 1 kw (Option E) or 2 kw (Option F) partial cabinet, one 40 Gb LCN connection, one 40 Gb IP network connection, two 40 Gb NMS Network connections, and either the Network Time Protocol Feed or the Precision Timing Protocol. Users selecting an Option E or F bundle would be charged the same initial charge of $10,000 that currently applies to Options C and D. In addition, Users would be charged monthly recurring charges (“MRC”) of $18,000 for an Option E bundle and $19,000 for an Option F bundle. The Exchange proposes that Users that purchase Option E or F bundles on or before December 31, 2021 would receive a 50% reduction in the MRC for the first 12 months.
The amended portion of the Fee Schedules would read as follows (proposed additions
The Exchange proposes that General Note 2 of the Fee Schedules—which currently applies to PCS bundle Options A through D—would also apply to proposed Option E and F bundles, without alteration. Specifically, a User and its Affiliates would be limited to one PCS bundle at a time, and a User and its Affiliates must have an Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of 2 kW or less to qualify for a PCS bundle.
The Exchange is not proposing any changes to PCS bundle Options A through D.
The proposed changes would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, they would apply to all Users equally.
Users that require other sizes or combinations of cabinets, network connections, and cross connects could still request them. As is currently the case, the purchase of any co-location service, including PCS bundles, is completely voluntary and the Fee Schedules are applied uniformly to all Users.
A User may host another entity in its space within the data center. Such Users are called “Hosting Users,” and their customers are “Hosted Customers.”
Based on conversations with Users and potential customers, the Exchange believes that Hosting Users offer bundles (“Hosting User Bundles”) that include cabinet space and space on shared LCN, IP, and NMS network connections, and that the Hosting User Bundles provide their end users with a service similar to that of the PCS bundles.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors (
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and would perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, for the following reasons.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to expand its PCS bundle options by offering the proposed Option E and F bundles. Currently, the Exchange offers Users the ability to purchase connectivity to the LCN/NMS and IP/NMS networks in 10 Gb and 40 Gb bandwidths, but within the Exchange's existing PCS bundle options, 40 Gb connections are not available. This means that at present, Users interested in the PCS bundled services—either because they have minimal power and cabinet space demands or because the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet are too burdensome—cannot access 40 Gb connections and are limited to the 10 Gb connections offered as part of the Option C and D bundles. Users and potential customers have requested that the Exchange provide them the opportunity to purchase PCS bundles that include 40 Gb connections, which would enable them to connect to more of the Included Data Products and Third Party Data Feeds or have the same size connection in co-location that they have everywhere. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to offer the proposed Option E and F bundles to satisfy this customer demand, while continuing to offer the existing bundle offerings, in order to provide potential Users of the PCS bundled services an additional 40 Gb option for their network connection requirements.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change may make PCS bundles more competitive with the services that Hosting Users offer. Without this proposed rule change, potential Users choosing between a PCS bundle and a Hosting User Bundle would have fewer options.
The Exchange believes that the proposed charges for the Option E and F bundles are reasonable. The Exchange proposes that Users choosing the Option E or F bundles would pay the same $10,000 initial charge that Users currently pay when choosing the Option C or D bundles, which reflects the fact that setting up each of these four cabinet options involves a similar amount of work for the Exchange. It is also reasonable for the Exchange to set MRC charges of $18,000 for an Option E bundle (a $4,000 increase over Option C) and $19,000 for an Option F bundle (a $4,000 increase over Option D) which reflects the fact that the Exchange will have to supply multiple 40 Gb connections in the Option E and F bundles, as opposed to the 10 Gb connections included in the Option C and D bundles.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to provide a period of eligibility for a 50% MRC reduction as an incentive to Users to utilize the Option E and F bundles. Similar 50% MRC reductions were proposed and approved for Options A through D when those product offerings were added to the Fee Schedules.
The Exchange believes its proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users equally. The Exchange would continue to offer the four existing PCS bundles (Options A through D) with different cabinet footprints and network connection options, in addition to the proposed Option E and F bundles. Users that require other sizes or combinations of cabinets, network connections, and cross connects could still request them. As is currently the case, the purchase of any co-location service, including PCS bundles, would be completely voluntary.
The Exchange believes that the proposed charges for Option E and F bundles are not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed initial charges and MRCs for Options E and F would apply equally to all Users that purchase an Option E or F bundle, and the proposed 50% reduction of MRC for the first 12 months would apply to any User that orders an Option E or F bundle on or before December 31, 2021.
The Exchange believes that its proposal equitably allocates its fees among its market participants.
The proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users equally. Specifically, the proposed initial charges and MRCs for Options E and F would apply equally to all Users that purchase an Option E or F bundle, and the proposed 50% reduction of MRC for the first 12 months would apply to any User that orders an Option E or F bundle on or before December 31, 2021. The Exchange would continue to offer the four existing PCS bundles (Options
Without this proposed rule change, potential Users choosing between a PCS bundle and a Hosting User Bundle would have fewer options. Potential Users could benefit from having an additional 40 Gb option for their network connection requirements, which would allow them to connect to more of the Included Data Products and Third Party Data Feeds or have the same size connection in co-location that they have elsewhere.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms, and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would not place any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
The Exchange's offering of the proposed Option E and F bundles would provide potential Users of PCS bundles a wider range of choices, which would be especially beneficial for potential Users with minimal power and cabinet space demands, but which could nevertheless benefit from an additional 40 Gb option for their network connection requirements. The Exchange believes that the proposed change may make PCS bundles more attractive to potential Users who might otherwise opt to become Hosted Customers, and thus would enhance the competitive environment for potential Users, who would then have more options from which to select. At the same time, however, no potential User would be obligated to purchase a PCS bundle, and it would still have the options offered by Hosting Users.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes will not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate. The proposed change is not meant to affect competition among national securities exchanges. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is a reasonable attempt to maintain a more level playing field between the Exchange and the Hosting Users, who compete for Hosted Customer business. Because Hosting Users' services are not regulated, they may offer differentiated pricing and are not required to make their pricing public. The Exchange believes that the proposed change may make PCS bundles more attractive to potential users who might otherwise opt to become Hosted Customers.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors (
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining price, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognizing that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment and does not impose any undue burden on intermarket competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Securities and Exchange
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
Rule 17g-1 (17 CFR 270.17g-1) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(g)) governs the fidelity bonding of officers and employees of registered management investment companies (“funds”) and their advisers. Rule 17g-1 requires, in part, the following:
The form and amount of the fidelity bond must be approved by a majority of the fund's independent directors at least once annually, and the amount of any premium paid by the fund for any “joint insured bond,” covering multiple funds or certain affiliates, must be approved by a majority of the fund's independent directors.
The amount of the bond may not be less than the minimum amounts of coverage set forth in a schedule based on the fund's gross assets. The bond must provide that it shall not be cancelled, terminated, or modified except upon 60-days written notice to the affected party and to the Commission. In the case of a joint insured bond, 60-days written notice must also be given to each fund covered by the bond. A joint insured bond must provide that the fidelity insurance company will provide all funds covered by the bond with a copy of the agreement, a copy of any claim on the bond, and notification of the terms of the settlement of any claim prior to execution of that settlement. Finally, a fund that is insured by a joint bond must enter into an agreement with all other parties insured by the joint bond regarding recovery under the bond.
Upon the execution of a fidelity bond or any amendment thereto, a fund must file with the Commission within 10 days: (i) A copy of the executed bond or any amendment to the bond, (ii) the independent directors' resolution approving the bond, and (iii) a statement as to the period for which premiums have been paid on the bond. In the case of a joint insured bond, a fund must also file: (i) A statement showing the amount the fund would have been required to maintain under the rule if it were insured under a single insured bond; and (ii) the agreement between the fund and all other insured parties regarding recovery under the bond. A fund must also notify the Commission in writing within five days of any claim or settlement on a claim under the fidelity bond.
A fund must notify by registered mail each member of its board of directors of: (i) Any cancellation, termination, or modification of the fidelity bond at least 45 days prior to the effective date; and (ii) the filing or settlement of any claim under the fidelity bond when notification is filed with the Commission.
Rule 17g-1's independent directors' annual review requirements, fidelity bond content requirements, joint bond agreement requirement, and the required notices to directors are designed to ensure the safety of fund assets against losses due to the conduct of persons who may obtain access to those assets. These requirements also seek to facilitate oversight of a fund's fidelity bond. The rule's required filings with the Commission are designed to assist the Commission in monitoring funds' compliance with the fidelity bond requirements.
Based on conversations with representatives in the fund industry, the Commission staff estimates that for each of the estimated 2,200 active funds (respondents),
These estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. These estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of Commission rules. The collection of information required by rule 17g-1 is mandatory and will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written comments are requested on: (i) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and (iv) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment funds and accounts.
Muzinich BDC, Inc. (“Muzinich BDC”), Muzinich BDC Adviser, LLC (“Muzinich BDC Adviser”), and Muzinich & Co., Inc. (“Muzinich & Co.,” and together with Muzinich BDC Adviser, the “Existing Advisers”).
The application was filed on December 27, 2019, and amended on May 21, 2020, and November 6, 2020.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
The Commission:
Jean E. Minarick, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6811 or Kaitlin C. Bottock, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The applicants request an order of the Commission under sections 17(d) and 57(i) and rule 17d-1 thereunder (the “Order”) to permit, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the application (the “Conditions”), a Regulated Fund
“Adviser” means the Existing Advisers, together with any future investment adviser that (i) controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with an Existing Adviser, (ii) (a) is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) or (b) is a relying adviser of an investment adviser that is registered under the Advisers Act, and that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with an Existing Adviser, and (iii) is not a Regulated Fund or a subsidiary of a Regulated Fund.
“BDC Downstream Fund” means, with respect to any Regulated Fund that is a business development company (“BDC”), an entity (i) that the BDC directly or indirectly controls, (ii) that is not controlled by any person other than the BDC (except a person that indirectly controls the entity solely because it controls the BDC), (iii) that would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act, (iv) whose investment adviser (and sub-adviser(s), if any) are an Adviser, (v) that is not a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub (as defined below) and (vi) that intends to participate in the Co-Investment Program.
2. Muzinich BDC is a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company incorporated in Delaware that have elected to be regulated as a BDC
“Independent Party” means, with respect to a BDC Downstream Fund, (i) if the BDC Downstream Fund has a board of directors (or the equivalent), the board or (ii) if the BDC Downstream Fund does not have a board of directors (or the equivalent), a transaction committee or advisory committee of the BDC Downstream Fund.
3. Muzinich BDC Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company formed under the laws of the state of Delaware, is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. Muzinich & Co., a Delaware corporation, is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act.
4. The Advisers, and any direct or indirect, wholly- or majority-owned subsidiary of an Adviser, may hold various financial assets in a principal capacity (the “Muzinich Proprietary Accounts”).
5. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time, form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.
6. Applicants represent that the Advisers have established processes for allocating initial investment opportunities, opportunities for subsequent investments in an issuer and dispositions of securities holdings reasonably designed to treat all clients fairly and equitably. Further, applicants represent that these processes will be extended and modified in a manner reasonably designed to ensure that the additional transactions permitted under the Order will both (i) be fair and equitable to the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds and (ii) comply with the Conditions.
7. Specifically, applicants state that the Advisers are organized and managed such that the teams and/or committees of investment professionals and/or members of senior management (“Investment Teams” and “Investment Committees,” respectively) responsible for evaluating investment opportunities and making investment decisions on behalf of clients are promptly notified of the opportunities. Opportunities for Potential Co-Investment Transactions may arise when investment advisory personnel of an Adviser or a Muzinich Proprietary Account becomes aware of investment opportunities that may be appropriate for one or more Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds. If the requested Order is granted, the Advisers will establish, maintain and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that, when such opportunities arise, the Advisers to the relevant Regulated Funds are promptly notified and receive the same information about the opportunity as any other Advisers considering the opportunity for their clients (including any Muzinich Proprietary Accounts considering the opportunity for themselves). In particular, consistent with Condition 1, if a Potential Co-Investment Transaction falls within the then-current Objectives and Strategies
8. Applicants state that, for each Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund whose Adviser recommends participating in a Potential Co-
9. If the aggregate Internal Orders for a Potential Co-Investment Transaction do not exceed the size of the investment opportunity immediately prior to the submission of the orders to the underwriter, broker, dealer or issuer, as applicable (the “External Submission”), then each Internal Order will be fulfilled as placed. If, on the other hand, the aggregate Internal Orders for a Potential Co-Investment Transaction exceed the size of the investment opportunity immediately prior to the External Submission, then the allocation of the opportunity will be made pro rata on the basis of the size of the Internal Orders.
“Eligible Directors” means, with respect to a Regulated Fund and a Potential Co-Investment Transaction, the members of the Regulated Fund's Board eligible to vote on that Potential Co-Investment Transaction under section 57(o) of the Act (treating any registered investment company or series thereof as a BDC for this purpose).
10. Applicants state that from time to time the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds may have opportunities to make Follow-On Investments
11. Applicants propose that Follow-On Investments would be divided into two categories depending on whether the prior investment was a Co-Investment Transaction or a Pre-Boarding Investment.
12. A Regulated Fund would be permitted to invest in Standard Review Follow-Ons either with the approval of the Required Majority under Condition 8(c) or without Board approval under Condition 8(b) if it is (i) a Pro Rata Follow-On Investment
“JT No-Action Letters” means SMC Capital, Inc., SEC No-Action Letter (pub. avail. Sept. 5, 1995) and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, SEC No-Action Letter (pub. avail. June 7, 2000).
13. Applicants propose that Dispositions
14. A Regulated Fund may participate in a Standard Review Disposition either with the approval of the Required Majority under Condition 6(d) or without Board approval under Condition 6(c) if (i) the Disposition is a Pro Rata Disposition
15. Applicants represent that under the terms and Conditions of the application, all Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds participating in a Co-Investment Transaction will invest at the same time, for the same price and with the same terms, conditions, class, registration rights and any other rights, so that none of them receives terms more favorable than any other. However, the settlement date for an Affiliated Fund in a Co-Investment Transaction may occur up to ten business days after the settlement date for the Regulated Fund, and vice versa. Nevertheless, in all cases, (i) the date on which the commitment of the Affiliated Funds and Regulated Funds is made will be the same even where the settlement date is not and (ii) the earliest settlement date and the latest settlement date of any Affiliated Fund or Regulated Fund participating in the transaction will occur within ten business days of each other.
16. Under Condition 15, if an Adviser, its principals, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser or its principals, and the Affiliated Funds (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting shares of a Regulated Fund (the “Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as required under Condition 15.
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit participation by a registered investment company and an affiliated person in any “joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan,” as defined in the rule, without prior approval by the Commission by order upon application. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.
2. Similarly, with regard to BDCs, section 57(a)(4) of the Act generally prohibits certain persons specified in section 57(b) from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a company controlled by the BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by the Commission. Section 57(i) of the Act provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under section 57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a)(4). Because the Commission has not adopted any rules under section 57(a)(4), rule 17d-1 also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs.
3. Co-Investment Transactions are prohibited by either or both of rule 17d-1 and section 57(a)(4) without a prior exemptive order of the Commission to the extent that the Affiliated Funds and the Regulated Funds participating in such transactions fall within the category of persons described by rule 17d-1 and/or section 57(b), as modified by rule 57b-1 thereunder, as applicable, vis-à-vis each participating Regulated Fund. Muzinich BDC Adviser will control Muzinich BDC and any other Adviser will be, controlling, controlled by or under common control with Muzinich BDC Adviser. Each of the participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds may be deemed to be affiliated persons vis-à-vis a Regulated Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) by reason of common control because (i) an Adviser, that is either an Existing Adviser or an entity that controls, is controlled by, or under common control with an Existing Adviser, will be the investment adviser (and sub-adviser, if any) to each of the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds (and, in the case of Muzinich Propretary Accounts which do not have an investment adviser, such Muzinich Proprietary Accounts will nonetheless be controlling, controlled by or under common control with an Adviser); (ii) Muzinich BDC Adviser is the Adviser to, and may be deemed to control, Muzinich BDC; and an Adviser will be the investment adviser and sub-adviser to, and may be deemed to control, any Future Regulated Fund; (iii) each BDC Downstream Fund will be deemed to be controlled by its BDC parent and/or its BDC parent's Adviser; and (iv) the Advisers are under common control. Thus, each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund may be deemed to be a person related to a Regulated Fund or BDC Downstream Fund in a manner described by section 57(b) (or section 17(d) in the case of Regulated Funds that are registered under the Act); and therefore would be prohibited by section 57(a)(4) (or section 17(d) in the case of Regulated Funds that are registered under the Act) and rule 17d-1 from participating in Co-Investment Transactions. Further, because the BDC Downstream Funds and Wholly-Owned Investment Subs will be controlled by the Regulated Funds, the BDC Downstream Funds and Wholly-Owned Investment Subs are subject to section 57(a)(4) (or section 17(d) in the case of Wholly-Owned Investment Subs controlled by Regulated Funds that are registered under the Act) and thus would also be subject to the provisions of rule 17d-1. In addition, the Muzinich Proprietary Accounts are entities that are or will be controlling, controlled by or under common control with Muzinich BDC Adviser. Thus, the
4. In passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
5. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief, in many circumstances the Regulated Funds would be limited in their ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment opportunities. Applicants state that, as required by rule 17d-1(b), the Conditions ensure that the terms on which Co-Investment Transactions may be made will be consistent with the participation of the Regulated Funds being on a basis that it is neither different from nor less advantageous than other participants, thus protecting the equity holders of any participant from being disadvantaged. Applicants further state that the Conditions ensure that all Co-Investment Transactions are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Funds and their shareholders and do not involve overreaching by any person concerned, including the Advisers. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the Co-Investment Transactions in accordance with the Conditions will be consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and would be done in a manner that is not different from, or less advantageous than, that of other participants.
Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following Conditions:
1.
(a) The Advisers will establish, maintain and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that each Adviser is promptly notified, for each Regulated Fund the Adviser manages, of all Potential Co-Investment Transactions that (i) an Adviser considers for any other Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund and (ii) fall within the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies and Board-Established Criteria.
(b) When an Adviser to a Regulated Fund is notified of a Potential Co-Investment Transaction under Condition 1(a), the Adviser will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for the Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
2.
(a) If the Adviser deems a Regulated Fund's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Fund, it will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the Regulated Fund.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the Advisers to be invested in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction by the participating Regulated Funds and any participating Affiliated Funds, collectively, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on the size of the Internal Orders, as described in section III.A.1.b. of the application. Each Adviser to a participating Regulated Fund will promptly notify and provide the Eligible Directors with information concerning the Affiliated Funds' and Regulated Funds' order sizes to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the applicable Regulated Fund's investments for compliance with these Conditions.
(c) After making the determinations required in Condition 1(b) above, each Adviser to a participating Regulated Fund will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the amount proposed to be invested by each participating Regulated Fund and each participating Affiliated Fund) to the Eligible Directors of its participating Regulated Fund(s) for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will enter into a Co-Investment Transaction with one or more other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's participation in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
(i) The terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Fund and its equity holders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Fund or its equity holders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) the transaction is consistent with:
(A) The interests of the Regulated Fund's equity holders; and
(B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by any other Regulated Fund(s) or Affiliated Fund(s) would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis different from, or less advantageous than, that of any other Regulated Fund(s) or Affiliated Fund(s) participating in the transaction; provided that the Required Majority shall not be prohibited from reaching the conclusions required by this Condition 2(c)(iii) if:
(A) The settlement date for another Regulated Fund or an Affiliated Fund in a Co-Investment Transaction is later than the settlement date for the Regulated Fund by no more than ten business days or earlier than the settlement date for the Regulated Fund by no more than ten business days, in either case, so long as: (x) The date on which the commitments of the Affiliated Funds and Regulated Funds are made is the same; and (y) the earliest settlement date and the latest settlement date of any Affiliated Fund or Regulated Fund participating in the transaction will occur within ten business days of each other; or
(B) any other Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund itself, gains the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have a board observer or any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company so long as: (x) The Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any; (y) the Adviser agrees to, and does, provide periodic reports to the Regulated Fund's Board with respect to the actions of such director or the information received by such board observer or obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company; and (z) any fees or other compensation that any other Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund or any affiliated person of any other Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund receives in connection with the right of one or more Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds to nominate a director or appoint a board observer or otherwise to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will be shared proportionately among any participating Affiliated Funds (who may, in turn, share their portion with their affiliated persons) and any participating Regulated Fund(s) in accordance with the amount of each such party's investment; and
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not involve compensation, remuneration or a direct
3.
4.
“Close Affiliate” means the Advisers, the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds and any other person described in section 57(b) (after giving effect to rule 57b-1) in respect of any Regulated Fund (treating any registered investment company or series thereof as a BDC for this purpose) except for limited partners included solely by reason of the reference in section 57(b) to section 2(a)(3)(D).
“Remote Affiliate” means any person described in section 57(e) in respect of any Regulated Fund (treating any registered investment company or series thereof as a BDC for this purpose) and any limited partner holding 5% or more of the relevant limited partner interests that would be a Close Affiliate but for the exclusion in that definition.
5.
6.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to such Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund,
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to participation by such Regulated Fund in the Disposition.
(b)
(c)
(i) (A) The participation of each Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund in such Disposition is proportionate to its then-current holding of the security (or securities) of the issuer that is (or are) the subject of the Disposition;
(ii) each security is a Tradable Security and (A) the Disposition is not to the issuer or any affiliated person of the issuer; and (B) the security is sold for cash in a transaction in which the only term negotiated by or on behalf of the participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds is price.
(d)
7.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to such Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund, as applicable, will notify each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer of the proposed Disposition at the earliest practical time;
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to participation by such Regulated Fund in the Disposition; and
(iii) the Advisers will provide to the Board of each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer all information relating to the existing investments in the issuer of the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds, including the terms of such investments and how they were made, that is necessary for the Required Majority to make the findings required by this Condition.
(b)
(i) The Disposition complies with Condition 2(c)(i), (ii), (iii)(A), and (iv); and
(ii) the making and holding of the Pre-Boarding Investments were not prohibited by section 57 or rule 17d-1, as applicable, and records the basis for the finding in the Board minutes.
(c)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
8.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to each such Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund, as applicable, will notify each Regulated Fund that holds securities of the portfolio company of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed investment, by such Regulated Fund.
(b)
(i) (A) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer or the security at issue, as appropriate,
(ii) it is a Non-Negotiated Follow-On Investment.
(c)
(d)
(i) the amount of the opportunity proposed to be made available to any Regulated Fund is not based on the Regulated Funds' and the Affiliated Funds' outstanding investments in the issuer or the security at issue, as appropriate, immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Advisers to be invested in the Follow-On Investment by the participating Regulated Funds and any participating Affiliated Funds, collectively, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, then the Follow-On Investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on the size of the Internal Orders, as described in section III.A.1.b. of the application.
(e)
9.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to each such Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund, as applicable, will notify each Regulated Fund that holds securities of the portfolio company of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time;
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed investment, by such Regulated Fund; and
(iii) the Advisers will provide to the Board of each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer all information relating to the existing investments in the issuer of the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds, including the terms of such investments and how they were made, that is necessary for the Required Majority to make the findings required by this Condition.
(b)
(c)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(d)
(i) The amount of the opportunity proposed to be made available to any Regulated Fund is not based on the Regulated Funds' and the Affiliated Funds' outstanding investments in the issuer or the security at issue, as appropriate, immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Advisers to be invested in the Follow-On Investment by the participating Regulated Funds and any participating Affiliated Funds, collectively, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, then the Follow-On Investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on the size of the Internal Orders, as described in section III.A.1.b. of the application.
(e)
10.
(a) Each Adviser to a Regulated Fund will present to the Board of each Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, and at such other times as the Board may request, (i) a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds or any of the Affiliated Funds during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies and Board-Established Criteria that were not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why such investment opportunities were not made available to the Regulated Fund; (ii) a record of all Follow-On Investments in and Dispositions of investments in any issuer in which the Regulated Fund holds any investments by any Affiliated Fund or other Regulated Fund during the prior quarter; and (iii) all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by other Regulated Funds, or Affiliated Funds that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the Independent Directors, may determine whether all Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with the Conditions.
(b) All information presented to the Regulated Fund's Board pursuant to this Condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
(c) Each Regulated Fund's chief compliance officer, as defined in rule 38a-1(a)(4), will prepare an annual report for its Board each year that evaluates (and documents the basis of that evaluation) the Regulated Fund's compliance with the terms and Conditions of the application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance. In the case of a BDC Downstream Fund that does not have a chief compliance officer, the chief compliance officer of the BDC that controls the BDC Downstream Fund will prepare the report for the relevant Independent Party.
(d) The Independent Directors (including the non-interested members of each Independent Party) will consider at least annually whether continued participation in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 11, 2021.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Cubism in Color: The Still Lifes of Juan Gris” at the Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, Texas, at the Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore, Maryland, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Projects: Gabrielle L'Hirondelle Hill” at the Museum of Modern Art's Sue and Edgar Wachenheim III Gallery, in New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative is providing notice that the United Kingdom (UK) in 2021 continues to be eligible to export under U.S. tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) allocated to the member countries of the European Union (EU).
This notice is applicable as of February 8, 2021.
Roger A. Wentzel, Office of Agricultural Affairs, at 202-395-5124, or
Pursuant to Additional U.S. Notes 6, 16 to 23, and 25 to Chapter 4 and Note 5 to Chapter 24 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), the United States maintains TRQs for imports from specific countries or customs areas, including the EU (designated in the HTSUS as the EU27 and including the UK).
Section 404(d)(3) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3601(d)(3)) authorizes the President to allocate the in-quota quantity of a TRQ for any agricultural product among supplying countries or customs areas and to modify any allocation as determined appropriate by the President. The President delegated this authority to the U.S. Trade Representative under Presidential Proclamation 6763 (60 FR 1007).
On October 17, 2019, the UK and EU agreed to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and the European Atomic Energy Community (Withdrawal Agreement). As part of the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK and EU agreed to a transition period, which ended on December 31, 2020. For 2021, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined that the UK will continue to be eligible to export under U.S. TRQs allocated to the EU under Additional U.S. Notes 6, 16 to 23, and 25 to Chapter 4 and Note 5 to Chapter 24 of the HTSUS. Additional information about certain dairy TRQs is available in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's notice
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 FAA Regional Administrators' Offices and the FAA Noise Ombudsman will use the information voluntarily reported, on the occasion of a complaint, by the public in the FAA Noise Portal to prepare responses to their noise complaints or inquiries. The required FAA Noise Portal fields represent the minimum amount of information the FAA needs to address the public's noise complaint or question and includes: name, email, address or cross street and a description of the noise complaint or inquiry. It is important to know the person's name and email address to respond and track the complaint. The FAA will not respond to the same complaint from the same person more than once. The address or cross street is needed for the FAA to determine potential sources of the aircraft noise issues as most people complain about aircraft in the vicinity of their residence. The description is used to provide additional details for the FAA to better address the complaint or question.
Written comments should be submitted by April 9, 2021.
Please send written comments:
Idurre L. Isasa-Cowan, Email:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and other Federal Agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and the USACE that are final. These final agency actions relate to the proposed highway construction along Lake Shore Drive, Stony Island Avenue, Hayes Drive, and other roadways in Jackson Park and the construction of proposed trails and underpasses in Jackson Park, Cook County, Illinois. The final agency actions (1) authorize the City of Chicago's proposed discharges of fill material into waters of the United States, (2) grant permission to alter a Federally-funded ecosystem restoration project under the Great Lakes Fishery & Ecosystem Restoration program, and (3) grant approval for the highway project to proceed to right-of-way acquisition, final design, and construction. The FHWA's Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) provides details on the Selected Alternative for the proposed improvements.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of the final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For FHWA: Ms. Arlene K. Kocher, Division Administrator, 3250 Executive Park Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703; telephone: (217) 492-4640; email address:
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA has taken a final agency action by issuing a (FONSI) for the following highway project in the State of Illinois: The proposed construction along Lake Shore Drive, Stony Island Avenue, Hayes Drive, and other roadways in Jackson Park and the construction of proposed trails and underpasses in Jackson Park, Cook County, Illinois.
Lake Shore Drive (U.S. Route 41) will be widened to the west to provide an additional southbound travel lane between 57th Street and Hayes Drive. To accommodate the additional travel lane, the 59th Street Inlet Bridge will be widened and modifications at the intersections of 57th Street, Science Drive, and Hayes Drive are proposed. Hayes Drive will be reconfigured to remove existing on-street parking to provide two travel lanes in each direction with minimal widening. Stony Island Avenue will be widened to the east to accommodate additional through lanes and turn lanes at cross-street intersections. Proposed bicycle and pedestrian accommodations include the construction of four underpasses within Jackson Park. Proposed trails and connections along Cornell Drive, Hayes Drive, and Marquette Drive will also be constructed.
The FHWA's action, related actions by other Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Environmental Assessment (EA) approved on September 21, 2020, the FONSI approved January 21, 2021, and in other documents in the project file. The EA and FONSI are available by contacting the FHWA, the USACE, or the Illinois Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above. In addition, these documents can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including, but not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321-4351] Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128].
2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)].
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303].
4. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d)(1)].
5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f)
6. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act (Section 404, Section 401, Section 319) [33 U.S.C. 1251-1377], Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [33 U.S.C. 401
7. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)], Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712].
8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands. E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species.
23 U.S.C. 139(
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing pricing for the 2021 National Law Enforcement Memorial and Museum Commemorative Coin Program and Christa McAuliffe Silver Dollar as follows:
Products containing gold coins will be priced according to the Pricing of Numismatic and Commemorative Gold and Platinum Products Grid posted at
Rosa Matos or Rosa Williams, Program Managers for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW; Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.
Public Law 116-94; Public Law 116-65.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public hearing.
Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, and report to Congress annually on “the national security implications of the economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.” Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will hold a public hearing in Washington, DC on February 18, 2021 on “Deterring People's Republic of China Aggression Toward Taiwan.”
The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, February 18, 2021, 10:30 a.m.
This hearing will be held with panelists and Commissioners participating in-person or online via videoconference. Members of the audience will be able to view a live webcast via the Commission's website at
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the hearing should contact Jameson Cunningham, 444 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 602, Washington DC 20001; telephone: 202-624-1496, or via email at
The hearing will be co-chaired by Senator Carte Goodwin and Senator James Talent. Any interested party may file a written statement by February 18, 2021 by transmitting to the contact above. A portion the hearing will include a question and answer period between the Commissioners and the witnesses.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is announcing the availability of funds for the Specially Adapted Housing Assistive Technology (SAHAT) Grant Program for fiscal year (FY) 2021. The objective of the grant is to encourage the development of new assistive technologies for specially adapted housing (SAH). This notice is intended to provide applicants with the information necessary to apply for the SAHAT Grant Program. VA strongly recommends referring to the SAHAT Grant Program regulation in conjunction with this notice. The registration process described in this notice applies only to applicants who will register to
Applications for the SAHAT Grant Program must be submitted through the
Mr. Jason Latona (Chief—Specially Adapted Housing), Specially Adapted Housing Program (262), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420,
This notice is divided into eight sections. Section I provides a summary of and background information on the SAHAT Grant Program; the statutory authority; the desired outcomes; funding priorities; definitions; and delegation of authority. Section II covers award information, including funding availability, and the anticipated start date of the SAHAT Grant Program. Section III provides detailed information on eligibility and the threshold criteria for submitting an application. Section IV provides detailed application and submission information, including how to request an application; application content; and submission dates and times. Section V describes the review process, scoring criteria and the selection process. Section VI provides award administration information such as award notices and reporting requirements.
Section VII lists agency contact information. Section VIII provides additional information related to the SAHAT Grant Program. This notice includes citations from 38 CFR part 36, and VA Financial Policy, Volume X, Grants Management, which applicants and stakeholders are expected to read to increase their knowledge and understanding of the SAHAT Grant Program.
Pursuant to the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 (Pub L. 111-275, § 203, 124 Stat. 2864), the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary), through the Loan Guaranty Service (LGY) of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), is authorized to provide grants of financial assistance to develop new assistive technology. The objective of the SAHAT Grant Program is to encourage the development of new assistive technologies for adapted housing.
LGY currently administers the Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) Grant Program. Through this program, LGY provides funds to eligible Veterans and Service members with certain service-connected disabilities to help purchase or construct an adapted home, or modify an existing home, to allow them to live more independently. Please see 38 U.S.C. 2101(a)(2)(B) and (C) and 38 U.S.C. 2101(b)(2) for a list of qualifying service-connected disabilities. Currently, most SAH adaptations involve structural modifications such as ramps; wider hallways and doorways; roll-in showers; and other accessible bathroom features, etc. For more information about the SAH Grant Program, please visit:
VA acknowledges there are many emerging technologies and improvements in building materials that could improve home adaptions or otherwise enhance a Veteran's or Service member's ability to live independently. Therefore, in 38 CFR § 36.4412(b)(2), has defined “new assistive technology” as an advancement that the Secretary determines could aid or enhance the ability of an eligible individual, as defined in 38 CFR 36.4401, to live in an adapted home. New assistive technology can include advancements in new-to-market technologies, as well as new variations on existing technologies. Examples of the latter might include modifying an existing software application for use with a smart home device; upgrading an existing shower pan design to support wheelchairs; using existing modular construction methods to improve bathroom accessibility; or using existing proximity technology to develop an advanced application tailored to blind users.
Public law 111-275, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 (the Act), was enacted on October 13, 2010. Section 203 of the Act added 38 U.S.C. 2108 to establish the SAHAT Grant Program. The Act authorized VA to provide grants of up to $200,000 per fiscal year, through September 30, 2016, to a “person or entity” for the development of specially adapted housing assistive technologies. On October 1, 2020, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act was enacted (Pub. L. 116-159, § 5201, 134 Stat. §§ 709, 749). Section 5201 of Public Law 116-159 extended the authority for VA to provide grants in the manner listed above through September 30, 2022. See 38 U.S.C. 2108 and 38 CFR 36.4412.
Grantees will be expected to leverage grant funds to develop new assistive technologies for SAH. In 38 CFR 36.4412(f)(2), VA set out the scoring criteria and the maximum points allowed for each criterion. As explained in the preambles to both the proposed and final rules, while the scoring framework is set out in the regulation text, each notice will address the scoring priorities for that particular grant cycle (79 FR §§ 53146, 53148, September 8, 2014; 80 FR §§ 55763, 55764, September 17, 2014). For FY 2021, the Secretary has identified the categories of innovation and unmet needs as top priorities. These categories are further described as scoring criteria 1 and 2 in Section V (A) of this notice. Although VA encourages innovation across a wide range of specialties, VA is, in this grant cycle, particularly interested in technologies that could help blind Veterans optimize their independence (
Additional information regarding how these priorities will be scored and considered in the final selection is contained in Section V (A) of this notice.
Definitions of terms used in the SAHAT Grant Program are found at 38 CFR § 36.4412(b).
Pursuant to 38 CFR 36.4412(i), certain VA employees appointed to or lawfully fulfilling specific positions within VBA are delegated authority, within the limitations and conditions prescribed by law, to exercise the powers and functions of the Secretary with respect to the SAHAT Grant Program authorized by 38 U.S.C. 2108.
Funding will be provided as an assistance agreement in the form of grants. The number of assistance agreements VA will fund as a result of this notice will be based on the quality of the technology grant applications received and the availability of funding. However, the maximum amount of assistance a technology grant applicant may receive in any fiscal year is limited to $200,000.
Funding for these projects is not guaranteed and is subject to the availability of funds and the evaluation of technology grant applications based on the criteria in this announcement. In appropriate circumstances, VA reserves the right to partially fund technology grant applications by funding discrete portions or phases of proposed projects that relate to adapted housing. Award of funding through this competition is not a guarantee of future funding. The SAHAT Grant Program is administered annually and does not guarantee subsequent awards. Renewal grants to provide new assistive technology will not be considered under this announcement.
The anticipated start date for funding grants awarded under this announcement is April 1, 2021. The funding period will not exceed 15 months from the start date, to be followed by a 90-day period for closeout. Grant projects must be closed out by September 30, 2022.
As authorized by 38 U.S.C. 2108, the Secretary may provide a grant to a “person or entity” for the development of specially adapted housing assistive technologies.
There is no cost sharing, matching, or cost participation for the SAHAT Grant Program.
All technology grant applicants and applications must meet the threshold criteria set forth below. Failure to meet any of the following threshold criteria in the application will result in the automatic disqualification for funding consideration. Ineligible participants will be notified within 30 days of the finding of disqualification for award consideration based on the following threshold criteria:
1. Projects funded under this notice must involve new assistive technologies that the Secretary determines could aid or enhance the ability of a Veteran or Service member to live in an adapted home.
2. Projects funded under this notice must not be used for the completion of work which was to have been completed under a prior grant.
3. Applications in which the technology grant applicant is requesting assistance funds in excess of $200,000 will not be reviewed.
4. Applications that do not comply with the application and submission information requirements provided in Section IV of this notice will be rejected.
5. Applications submitted via mail, email, or facsimile will not be reviewed.
6. Applications must be received through
7. Technology grant applicants that have an outstanding obligation that is in arrears to the Federal Government or have an overdue or unsatisfactory response to an audit will be deemed ineligible.
8. Technology grant applicants in default by failing to meet the requirements for any previous Federal assistance will be deemed ineligible.
9. Applications submitted by entities deemed ineligible will not be reviewed.
10. Applications with project dates that extend past June 30, 2022, (this period does not include the 90-day closeout period) will not be reviewed.
All technology grant recipients, including individuals and entities formed as for-profit entities, will be subject to the rules on Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, as found at 2 CFR part 200. See 2 CFR 200.101(a). Where the Secretary determines that 2 CFR part 200 is not applicable or where the Secretary determines that additional requirements are necessary due to the uniqueness of a situation, the Secretary will apply the same standard applicable to exceptions under 2 CFR 200.102.
Technology grant applicants may download the application package from
The SAHAT Grant Program application package provided at
1. Standard Forms (SF) 424, 424A, and 424B require general information about the applicant and proposed project. The project budget should be described in SF-424A. Please do not include leveraged resources in SF-424A.
2.
3.
4.
a. A project description, including the goals and objectives of the project, what the project is expected to achieve, and how the project will benefit Veterans and Service members;
b. An estimated schedule including the length of time (not to extend past June 30, 2022) needed to accomplish tasks and objectives for the project;
c. A description of what the project proposes to demonstrate and how this new technology will aid or enhance the ability of Veterans and Service members to live in an adapted home. The following link has additional information regarding adapted homes:
d. Each technology grant applicant is responsible for ensuring that the application addresses each of the scoring criteria listed in Section V (A) of this notice.
Each technology grant applicant, unless the applicant is an individual or Federal awarding agency that is excepted from these requirements under 2 CFR 25.110(b) or (c), or has an exception approved by VA under 2 CFR 25.110(d), is required to:
1. Be registered in SAM prior to submitting an application;
2. Provide a valid DUNS number in the application; and
3. Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the technology grant applicant has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by VA.
VA will not make an award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements, and if the applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time VA is ready to make an award, VA will determine the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and will use this determination as a basis for making the award to another applicant.
Applications for the SAHAT Grant Program must be submitted via
Applications submitted via
It is the responsibility of grant applicants to ensure a complete application is submitted via
It is recommended that confidential business information (CBI) not be included in the application. However, if CBI is included in an application, applicants should clearly indicate which portion(s) of their application they are claiming as CBI. See 2 CFR 200.333-200.337 (addressing access to a non-Federal entity's records pertinent to a Federal award).
This section is not applicable to the SAHAT Grant Program.
The SAHAT Grant Program does not allow reimbursement of pre-award costs.
Each eligible proposal (based on the Section III threshold eligibility review) will be evaluated according to the criteria established by the Secretary and provided below in Section A.
The Secretary will score technology grant applications based on the scoring criteria listed below. As indicated in Section I of this notice, the Secretary is placing the greatest emphasis on criteria 1 and 2. This emphasis does not establish new scoring criteria but is designed to assist technology grant applicants in understanding how scores will be weighted and ultimately considered in the final selection process. A technology grant application must receive a minimum aggregate score of 70. Instructions for completion of the scoring criteria are listed on VA Form 26-0967a. This form is included in the application package materials on
1. A description of how the new assistive technology is innovative, to include an explanation of how it involves advancements in new-to-market technologies, new variations on existing technologies, or both (up to 50 points);
2. An explanation of how the new assistive technology will meet a specific, unmet need among eligible individuals, to include whether and how the new assistive technology fits within a category of special emphasis for FY 2021, as explained in Section I D. of this notice (up to 50 points);
3. An explanation of how the new assistive technology is specifically designed to promote the ability of eligible individuals to live more independently (up to 30 points);
4. A description of the new assistive technology's concept, size, and scope (up to 30 points);
5. An implementation plan with major milestones for bringing the new assistive technology into production and to the market. Such milestones must be meaningful and achievable within a specific timeframe (up to 30 points); and
6. An explanation of what uniquely positions the technology grant applicant in the marketplace. This can include a focus on characteristics such as the economic reliability of the technology grant applicant, the technology grant applicant's status as a minority or Veteran-owned business, or other characteristics that the technology grant applicant wants to include to show how it will help protect the interests of, or further the mission of, VA and the program (up to 20 points).
Eligible applications will be evaluated by a review panel comprising five VA employees. The review panel will score applications using the scoring criteria provided in Section V(A) and refer to the selecting official those applications that receive a minimum aggregate score of 70. In determining which applications to approve, the selecting official will take into account the review panel score, the priorities described in
Although subject to change, the SAHAT Grant Program Office expects to announce grant recipients by April 1, 2021. Prior to executing any funding agreement, VA will contact successful applicants; make known the amount of proposed funding; and verify the applicant's desire to receive the funding. Any communication between the SAHAT Grant Program Office and successful applicants prior to the issuance of an award notice is not authorization to begin project activities. Once VA verifies that the grant applicant is still seeking funding, VA will issue a signed and dated award notice. The award notice will be sent by U.S. mail to the organization listed on the SF-424. All applicants will be notified by letter, sent by United States mail to the address listed on the SF-424.
This section is not applicable to the SAHAT Grant Program.
VA places great emphasis on the responsibility and accountability of grantees. Grantees must agree to cooperate with any Federal evaluation of the program and provide the following:
1.
2.
3.
For additional general information about this announcement contact Mr. Oscar Hines, Program Manager, Specially Adapted Housing Program, at
Mailed correspondence, which should not include application material, should be sent to: Loan Guaranty Service, VA Central Office, Attention: Mr. Oscar Hines (262), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420
All correspondence with VA concerning this announcement should reference the funding opportunity title and funding opportunity number listed at the top of this solicitation. Once the announcement deadline has passed, VA staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the application review process has been completed.
Section 2108 authorizes VA to provide grants for the development of new assistive technologies through September 30, 2022. Additional information related to the SAHAT Grant Program administered by LGY is available at
The SAHAT Grant is not a Veterans' benefit. As such, the decisions of the Secretary are final and not subject to the same appeal rights as decisions related to Veterans' benefits. The Secretary does not have a duty to assist technology grant applicants in obtaining a grant.
Grantees will receive payments electronically through the Department of Health and Human Services Payment Management System (PMS). All grant recipients should adhere to PMS user policies.
In accordance with Office of Management and Budget guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws and relevant Executive guidance, the Federal awarding agency will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice of funding opportunity in accordance with the:
• President's September 2, 2020, memorandum, entitled
•
•
• Guidance for Grants and Agreements in Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations), as updated in the
○ Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR part 200.205),
○ Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. No. 115-232) (2 CFR part 200.216),
○ Promoting the freedom of speech and religious liberty in alignment with
○ Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR part 200.322), and
○ Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR part 200.340).
Dat P. Tran, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved this document on February 2, 2021, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 9, 2021.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
38 U.S.C. 501.
No substantive changes were added and/or removed from this form. This request is only to extend the viability of the form. Due to a reduction in respondent totals over the past year, the respondent burden has decreased.
By direction of the Secretary.