The U.S. Codex Office
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”) is adopting as a final rule, without change, its March 24, 2020 interim final rule amending its Regulation D (Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions) to lower reserve requirement ratios on transaction accounts maintained at depository institutions to zero percent.
The final rule is effective March 12, 2021.
Sophia H. Allison, Senior Special Counsel, (202-452-3565), Legal Division, or Matthew Malloy (202-452-2416), Division of Monetary Affairs, or Heather Wiggins (202-452-3674), Division of Monetary Affairs; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202-263-4869; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20551.
Section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (the “Act”) imposes reserve requirements on certain types of deposits and other liabilities of depository institutions. Specifically, section 19(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)) requires each depository institution to maintain reserves against its transaction accounts, nonpersonal time deposits, and Eurocurrency liabilities, as prescribed by Board regulations, for the purpose of implementing monetary policy. The Board's Regulation D (Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions, 12 CFR part 204) implements the reserve requirements provisions of section 19 of the Act.
On March 15, 2020, the Board announced an interim final rule amending Regulation D to lower all transaction account reserve requirement ratios to zero percent, thereby eliminating all reserve requirements.
For many years, reserve requirements played a central role in the implementation of monetary policy by creating a stable demand for reserves. In January 2019, the FOMC announced its intention to implement monetary policy in an ample reserves regime. Reserve requirements do not play a significant role in this operating framework.
In light of the shift to an ample reserves regime, the Board has reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective on March 26, the beginning of the next reserve maintenance period. This action eliminates reserve requirements for thousands of depository institutions and will help to support lending to households and businesses.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that a final rule be published in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking when a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation.
Final rule.
This rule implements inflation adjustments to civil money penalties (CMPs) that the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC) may impose under the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended. These adjustments are required by 2015 amendments to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990.
Lynn M. Powalski, General Counsel, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102, (703) 883-4380, TTY (703) 883-4390.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act) amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act)
FCSIC must enact regulations that annually adjust its CMPs pursuant to the inflation adjustment formula of the amended Inflation Adjustment Act and rounded using a method prescribed by the Inflation Adjustment Act. The new amounts are applicable to penalties assessed on or after January 15, 2021, for conduct occurring on or after November 2, 2015. Agencies do not have discretion in choosing whether to adjust a CMP, by how much to adjust a CMP, or the methods used to determine the adjustment.
First, section 5.65(c) of the Farm Credit Act, as amended (Act), provides that any insured Farm Credit System bank that willfully fails or refuses to file any certified statement or pay any required premium shall be subject to a penalty of not more than $100 for each day that such violations continue, which penalty FCSIC may recover for its use.
FCSIC's current § 1411.1 provides that FCSIC can impose a maximum penalty of $214 per day for a violation under section 5.65(c) and (d) of the Act.
The 2015 Act requires agencies to make annual adjustments for inflation. Annual inflation adjustments are based on the percent change between the October Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) preceding the date of the adjustment, and the prior year's October CPI-U. Based on the CPI-U for October 2020, not seasonally adjusted, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2021 is 1.01182.
In accordance with the 2015 Act, Federal agencies shall adjust civil monetary penalties “notwithstanding” Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act. This means that public procedure generally required for agency rulemaking—notice, an opportunity for comment, and a delay in effective date—is not required for agencies to issue regulations implementing the annual adjustment.
Banks, banking, Civil money penalties, Penalties.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 1411 of chapter XIV, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Secs. 5.58(10), 5.65(c) and (d) of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2277a-7(10), 2277a-14(c) and (d)); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
In accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended, a civil money penalty imposed pursuant to section 5.65(c) or (d) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, shall not exceed $217 per day for each day the violation continues.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Commission, by its designee, the Executive Director, issues this notice of the annual update to the fee schedule, which lists per-acre rental fees by county (or other geographic area) for use of government lands by hydropower licensees.
This rule is effective February 10, 2021. The updates to appendix A to part 11, with the fee schedule of per-acre rental fees by county (or other geographic area), are from October 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021 (Fiscal Year 2021).
Raven A. Rodriguez, Financial Management Division, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6276,
Section 11.2 of the Commission's regulations provides a method for computing reasonable annual charges for recompensing the United States for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of its lands by hydropower licensees.
This final rule is effective February 10, 2021. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 804, regarding Congressional review of final rules, do not apply to this final rule because the rule concerns agency procedure and practice and will not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. This final rule merely updates the fee schedule published in the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect scheduled adjustments, as provided for in § 11.2 of the Commission's regulations.
Public lands.
By the Executive Director.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 11, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.
16 U.S.C. 792-828c; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The portion for approval consists of negative declarations for certain specified Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG), including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG (2016 Oil and Gas CTG), as well as a number of other negative declarations for Alternative Control Techniques (ACTs) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The negative declarations cover only those CTGs or ACTs for which there are no sources subject to those CTGs or ACTs located in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions Control Area. EPA is approving these revisions to the Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on March 12, 2021.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0283. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Erin Trouba, 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) 814-2023. Ms. Trouba can also be reached via electronic mail at
On July 16, 2020 (85 FR 43187), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining to part of a SIP submittal from the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of negative declarations for certain specified CTGs, including the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, as well as a number of other negative declarations for ACTs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The CAA regulates emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
On March 6, 2016 (80 FR 12264), EPA issued a final rule entitled “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (2008 Ozone Implementation Rule). In the preamble to the final rule, EPA makes clear that if there are no sources covered by a specific CTG source category located in an ozone nonattainment area or an area in the OTR, the state may submit a negative declaration for that CTG. 80 FR 12264, 12278.
In its April 2, 2020 submittal, VADEQ certified to EPA that the Northern Virginia area has met all of the CAA RACT implementation requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 184(b)(1)(B). However, this final rule only addresses section 2.2 of the April 2, 2020 submittal, which contains negative declarations for certain CTGs and ACTs in the Northern Virginia area, as described in the NPRM. EPA notes that Virginia's April 2, 2020 SIP submission also addresses RACT for major sources of NO
Table 3 of section 2.2 of the SIP submittal identifies source categories subject to CTGs and ACTs for which Virginia is submitting a negative declaration stating that there are no sources located in the Northern Virginia area subject to these CTGs or ACTs, for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As noted in the NPRM, EPA issued a CTG for the Oil and Gas Industry in October of 2016. Because this is a newer CTG, section 2.2 of the submittal includes a first-time negative declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. Along with the other negative declarations, VADEQ asserts that there are no facilities in the Northern Virginia area that are currently involved in oil and gas production and processing activities covered by the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. The rationale for EPA's proposed action is explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
EPA received three comments on the July 16, 2020 NPRM. All comments received are in the docket for this action. One comment was generally supportive of the CAA's impact on human health and the environment but did not specifically address any aspect of EPA's proposed action and will therefore not be addressed here. A summary of the other two comments and EPA's responses are provided herein.
EPA has historically allowed states to submit a negative declaration for a particular CTG category if the state finds that no sources exist in the state, or area, which would be subject to that CTG. EPA has addressed the idea of negative declarations numerous times and for various NAAQS including in the General Preamble to the 1990 Amendments,
Nothing in the CAA or EPA's implementing rules or guidance suggests that states must have a SIP approved regulation for a category of CTG sources that does not exist in the state. Should a new source of the type covered by the existing CTG be constructed in a state after approval of a negative declaration, EPA expects the state to develop a regulation and submit it to EPA for approval into the SIP in accordance with the relevant timing provided for by the CAA. At this time, because the portion of Northern Virginia included in the OTR does not have any sources subject to any of the CTGs listed in the NPRM, no regulations are required to be developed and submitted to EPA for SIP approval for those CTGs.
Also, contrary to commenter's claim, the negative declarations will not have any impact on any proposed development projects. The negative declarations neither exempt sources subject to a CTG from complying with other provisions of the CAA and Virginia law which otherwise apply nor create any new requirements. In addition, EPA cannot identify any impact the negative declarations would have on any proposed solar project as claimed by the Commenter, and EPA is unable to evaluate the analysis that the Commenter references because no citation is included in the comment. The Commenter also references a letter from April 6, 2013 that they sent to EPA. However, because the commenter did not identify the matter to which it applied or the person to whom the letter was sent, EPA could not locate such a letter and was therefore unable to evaluate it.
Further, EPA cannot identify, and the Commenter did not identify, any conflict with any state law which the approval of these negative declarations might create. As discussed previously, the negative declarations being approved by this action do not create any new Virginia law, so no conflict with existing state law is being created.
The Commenter is also incorrect about the impact and purpose of Virginia's negative declarations. As discussed in response to Comment 1, the negative declarations which EPA proposed to approve in the July 16, 2020 NPRM do not preclude any future proposal to locate a new source in the Northern Virginia area that is subject to a CTG. The sole purpose of these negative declarations is to certify that at the time of the declaration, no sources covered by a particular CTG exist within the Northern Virginia area. EPA's approval of the negative declarations indicates that the Agency agrees with the State's factual determination that no sources exist in the Northern Virginia area that are covered by the CTGs and ACTs listed. This factual determination does not itself preclude any future development or limit economic development because it does not impose any restrictions on sources or the State.
Regarding the Commenter's assertion that the negative declarations are contrary to an unidentified Executive Order “. . . precluding the government from imposing new regulations or rules on the oil and gas industry,” EPA notes that the comment does not identify the Executive Order containing this prohibition. The Commenter may be referring to Executive Order 13783 (Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth) from March 28, 2017. Nevertheless, via this action, neither EPA nor Virginia is adopting or imposing any regulations or rules on the oil and gas industry. As explained previously, Virginia is merely stating that at this time there are no sources in the Northern Virginia area which are subject to the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.
For the reasons stated, EPA disagrees with the commenters and is therefore finalizing our proposed approval of the negative declarations in Virginia's April 2, 2020 submittal.
EPA is approving that portion of Virginia's April 2, 2020 SIP submission making a negative declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, as well as re-certifying a number of negative declarations for certain specified CTGs and ACTs, in accordance with the SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as a revision to the Virginia SIP.
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
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 action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because this 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 12, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action certifies negative declarations for certain specified CTGs, including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG, as well as a number of other negative declarations for ACTs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Northern Virginia area and may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
This document of the Environmental Protection Agency was signed on November 17, 2020, by Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree in
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the
This correction is effective on February 8, 2021.
For further information, please contact Megan Danner, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at
In the
Federal Communications Commission
Denial of reconsideration.
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) denies Public Knowledge's Petition for Reconsideration of the
The Commission denies the petition for reconsideration as of March 12, 2021.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Michele Levy Berlove, at (202) 418-1477,
This is a summary of the Wireline Competition Bureau's Order on Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 17-84, adopted October 20, 2020 and released October 20, 2020. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's website at
The Wireline Competition Bureau adopted the Order on Reconsideration in conjunction with an Order and a Declaratory Ruling in WC Docket No. 17-84.
This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
The Commission will not send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the adopted rules are rules of particular applicability. This document denying the Order on Reconsideration applies to one petitioner, Public Knowledge.
1. Next-generation networks hold the promise of new and improved service offerings for American consumers, and encouraging the deployment of these facilities as broadly as possible has long been a priority of the Commission. The COVID-19 pandemic has served to underscore the importance of ensuring that people throughout the country can reap the benefits of these next-generation networks, which provide increased access to economic opportunity, healthcare, education, civic engagement, and connections with family and friends. Removing unnecessary regulatory barriers faced by carriers seeking to transition legacy networks and services to modern broadband infrastructure is therefore a key component of the Commission's work to improve access to advanced communications services and to close the digital divide.
2. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Wireline Competition Bureau denies a petition by Public Knowledge (Petitioner) seeking reconsideration of the
3. Section 214(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires that carriers seek Commission authorization before discontinuing, reducing, or impairing service to a community or part of a community. Unless otherwise noted, this item uses the term “discontinue” or “discontinuance” as a shorthand for the statutory language “discontinue, reduce, or impair.” The Commission will grant such authorization only if it determines that “neither the present nor future public convenience and necessity will be adversely affected.” This requirement is “directed at preventing a loss or impairment of a service offering to a community or part of a community without adequate public interest safeguards.” Reference to “the Commission” with respect to administering its section 214 discontinuance rules throughout this item includes actions taken by the Bureau pursuant to its delegated authority to accept, process, and act on section 214 applications.
4. The Commission's rules implementing section 214(a) provide that a carrier's application seeking Commission discontinuance authority will be automatically granted after sixty or thirty days, depending on whether the carrier is considered dominant or nondominant, respectively, unless the Commission notifies the applicant otherwise. This automatic grant feature has become known as streamlined processing. The Commission may remove an application from streamlined processing based on the contents of the application itself, responsive or oppositional comments, or other issues associated with the application that warrant further scrutiny prior to acting. The Commission will normally authorize the discontinuance, however, “unless it is shown that customers would be unable to receive service or a reasonable substitute from another carrier or that the public convenience or necessity is otherwise adversely affected.”
5. In evaluating whether a planned discontinuance of service will adversely affect the public convenience or necessity, the Commission traditionally employs a five-factor balancing test. These five factors analyze: (1) The financial impact on the common carrier of continuing to provide the service; (2) the need for the service in general; (3) the need for the particular facilities in question; (4) increased charges for alternative services; and (5) the existence, availability, and adequacy of alternatives. While analysis of these five factors “generally provides the basis for reviewing discontinuance applications, our `public interest evaluation necessarily encompasses the broad aims of the Communications Act.' ” In 2016, the Commission revised its streamlined discontinuance rules to create a process applicable specifically to technology transition discontinuance applications. These applications seek to discontinue legacy time-division multiplexing (TDM)-based voice services in a community, replacing them instead with a voice service using a different, next-generation technology. In adopting a new process specifically for technology transition discontinuance applications, the Commission concluded that the existence, availability, and adequacy of alternatives has “heightened importance” in evaluating the impact on the public interest, as consumers in the affected community would typically need to transition to more modern voice service alternatives having different characteristics. As a result, carriers could get streamlined treatment of a technology transition discontinuance application only by complying with a set of requirements intended to focus heightened scrutiny on the replacement service to which end-user customers would have access. In order to get streamlined treatment via the adequate replacement test, a technology transition discontinuance applicant must certify or demonstrate that one or more replacement services in the area offers all of the following: (1) Substantially similar levels of network infrastructure and service quality as the applicant service; (2) compliance with existing Federal and/or industry standards required to ensure that critical applications such as 911, network security, and applications for individuals with disabilities remain available; and (3) interoperability and compatibility with an enumerated list of applications and functionalities determined to be key to consumers and competitors.
6. In furtherance of its commitment to encouraging a more rapid transition to next-generation voice technologies and services, the Commission further amended its technology transition discontinuance rules in 2018 to provide an additional, more streamlined option for carriers seeking to discontinue legacy voice services. This option encompassed “appropriate limitations to protect consumers and the public interest,” while enabling carriers to work more responsively to “redirect resources to next-generation networks,” ultimately benefitting the public. Via a
7. In this Order on Reconsideration, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) denies Public Knowledge's Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the
8. On June 7, 2018, the Commission adopted the
9. In support of its Petition, Public Knowledge raises several arguments that the Commission previously addressed in the
10. First, Public Knowledge argues in its Petition that a filing by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), submitted after the
11. As an initial matter, the Commission fully considered, and rejected, arguments that government agencies would be negatively impacted by the rules adopted in the
12. Moreover, several commenters point out that the Petition misconstrues NTIA's filing, which, “[c]ontrary to Public Knowledge's assertions, . . . generally supports the Commission's approach” in the
13. The Wireline Competition Bureau also disagrees with arguments in the Petition that the Commission's alternative options test and consumer comment period for discontinuances are arbitrary, inconsistent with the public interest, or unsupported by the record underlying the
14. We also dismiss Petitioner's arguments that we must reconsider the
15. The Petition argues that the absence of specific performance metrics in the alternative options test indicates that the Commission has “abdicated its statutory duty to promote the public interest.” The Wireline Competition Bureau disagrees. As Verizon notes in its opposition, the Petition “ignores the Commission's explanation for why the . . . compliance obligations that it found necessary for the . . . adequate replacement test are not necessary under the alternative options test,” which, unlike the adequate replacement test, requires the existence of at least
16. The Wireline Competition Bureau also disagrees with arguments in the Petition that we should reconsider the 10-day consumer comment period adopted in the
17. Finally, the Wireline Competition Bureau dismisses the Petition's argument that the Commission “must reconsider its belief that market-based incentives are sufficient to ensure that carriers provide adequate replacement services to consumers in the event of a service discontinuance.” The Commission has previously considered and rejected Petitioner's claims in this regard. Nevertheless, judgments concerning the nature and impact of market incentives as they relate to public policy are well within the Commission's discretion. The rules adopted in the
18. The Wireline Competition Bureau dismisses as moot Public Knowledge's accompanying Motion to hold the
19. This action is taken pursuant to the authority delegated by §§ 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91 and 0.291.
20. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
21.
22. Accordingly,
23.
24.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on January 6, 2021.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure for the commercial longline component for golden tilefish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. Commercial longline landings for golden tilefish are projected to reach the longline component's commercial quota by February 10, 2021. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial longline component of golden tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ on February 10, 2021, at 12:01 a.m. local time. This closure is necessary to protect the golden tilefish resource.
This temporary rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. local time on February 10, 2021, until 12:01 a.m. local time on January 1, 2022.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The commercial golden tilefish sector has two components, each with its own quota: The longline and hook-and-line components (50 CFR 622.190(a)(2)). The commercial golden tilefish annual catch limit (ACL) is allocated 75 percent to the longline component and 25 percent to the hook-and-line component. The total commercial ACL (equivalent to the commercial quota) is 331,740 lb (150,475 kg) gutted weight, and the longline component quota is 248,805 lb (112,856 kg) gutted weight.
Under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(ii), NMFS is required to close the commercial longline component for golden tilefish when the longline component's commercial quota has been reached or is projected to be reached by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. After this closure, golden tilefish may not be commercially fished or possessed by a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for the golden tilefish longline component in the South Atlantic will be reached by February 10, 2021. Accordingly, the commercial longline component of South Atlantic golden tilefish is closed effective at 12:01 a.m. local time on February 10, 2021, and will remain closed until the start of the next fishing year on January 1, 2022.
During the commercial longline closure, golden tilefish may still be commercially harvested using hook-and-line gear. However, a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement is not eligible to fish for or possess golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line commercial trip limit, as specified in 50 CFR 622.191(a)(2)(ii). During the commercial longline closure, the recreational bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(2)(iii) and (c)(1), respectively, apply to all harvest or possession of golden tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ by a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement.
The sale or purchase of longline-caught golden tilefish taken from the South Atlantic EEZ is prohibited during the commercial longline closure. The operator of a vessel with a valid Federal commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper and a valid commercial longline endorsement for golden tilefish with golden tilefish on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such golden tilefish prior to 12:01 a.m. local time on February 10, 2021. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of longline-caught golden tilefish that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m. local time on February 10, 2021, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. Additionally, the recreational bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase prohibitions under the commercial closure apply to a person on board a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement, regardless of whether the golden tilefish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(ii), issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations associated with the commercial closure of the golden tilefish longline component have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the commercial component closure. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement the commercial component closure to protect the South Atlantic golden tilefish resource. The capacity of the longline fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial longline component quota, and any delay in the commercial closure could result in the commercial longline component quota being exceeded. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest that exceeds the commercial quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; re-opening of comment period.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking published on November 19, 2020 at 85 FR 74162, are reopened. Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2021.
Ashley Ortiz, Management and Program Analyst, Office of Field Operations,
Comments may be submitted, identified by docket number USCBP-2020-0062, by the following method:
Due to COVID-19-related restrictions, CBP has temporarily suspended its ability to receive public comments by mail.
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on the NPRM. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the NPRM, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is required by statute to develop and implement an integrated, automated entry and exit data system to match records, including biographic data and biometrics, of aliens entering and departing the United States. Although the current regulations provide that DHS may require certain aliens to provide biometrics when entering and departing the United States, they only authorize DHS to require certain aliens to provide biometrics upon departure under pilot programs at land ports and at up to 15 airports and seaports. To advance the legal framework for DHS to begin a comprehensive biometric entry-exit system, DHS is proposing to amend the regulations to remove the references to pilot programs and the port limitation to permit collection of biometrics from aliens departing from airports, land ports, seaports, or any other authorized point of departure. In addition, to enable U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to make the process for verifying the identity of aliens more efficient, accurate, and secure by using facial recognition technology, DHS is proposing to amend the regulations to provide that all aliens may be required to be photographed upon entry and/or departure. U.S. citizens may voluntarily opt out of participating in CBP's biometric verification program. The NPRM also makes other minor conforming and editorial changes to the regulations. For more detailed information on all of the proposed changes, see the NPRM published on November 19, 2020 at 85 FR 74162.
Based on the comments received, CBP is re-opening the comment period to allow for additional comments to be submitted on the NPRM. Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2021.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE); Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Department of the Interior.
Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.
The Department of the Interior (DOI or Department), acting through BSEE and BOEM, is reopening the comment period for Proposed Rule: Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—Revisions
BSEE and BOEM are reopening the comment period for the proposed rule published December 9, 2020 at 85 FR 79266 until April 9, 2021. You may also submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the information collection burden in this proposed rule by April 9, 2021. The deadline for comments on the information collection burden does not affect the deadline for the public to comment to BSEE and BOEM on the proposed regulations.
You may submit comments on BSEE's or BOEM's sections of the rulemaking by any of the following methods. For comments on this proposed rule and associated documents, please use the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1082-AA01 as an identifier in your message.
•
•
•
•
For technical questions related to regulatory changes BSEE is proposing in Part 250, contact Mark E. Fesmire, BSEE, Alaska Regional Office,
On December 9, 2020, the Department published the Proposed Rule: Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—Revisions to the Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf and opened a 60-day public comment period, which closed February 8, 2021. After publication of the proposed rule, BSEE and BOEM received requests to extend the comment period on the proposed rule for 60 days. BSEE and BOEM are reopening the comment period for an additional 60 days to provide additional time for review of and comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Accordingly, comments must be submitted by the extended due date of April 9, 2021. BSEE and BOEM may not fully consider comments received after this date.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a recurring safety zone for navigable waters within Cocos Lagoon. This safety zone will encompass the designated swim course for the Cocos Crossing swim event in the waters of Cocos Lagoon, Merizo, Guam. Race participants, chase boats, and organizers of the event will be exempt from the safety zone. Entry of persons or vessels into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Guam. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 12, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2020-0460 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Petty Officer Robert Davis, Sector Guam, U.S. Coast Guard, by telephone at (671) 355-4866, or email at
The Cocos Crossing swim event is a recurring annual event that occurs on the Sunday before Memorial Day. We have established safety zones for this swim event in past years.
The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of the participants and the navigable waters in the safety zone
The Captain of the Port (COTP) is proposing to establish a safety zone from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. annually on the Sunday before Memorial Day unless delayed for weather for the Cocos Crossing swimming event. This safety zone is necessary to protect all persons and vessels participating in this marine event from potential safety hazards associated with vessel traffic in the area. Race participants, chase boats, and organizers of the event will be exempt from the safety zone. Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which will impact a small designated area of the Cocos Lagoon for approximately 7 hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately 7 hours that would prohibit entry within 100-yards for swim participants. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all persons and vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on his or her behalf.
(4) Persons and Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at telephone number (671) 355-4821. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or an on-scene representative.
(d)
U.S. Codex Office, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The U.S Codex Office is sponsoring a public meeting on April 13, 2021. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 41st Session of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Budapest, Hungary, May 17-21, 2021. The U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius and the Acting Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs (TFAA) recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 41st Session of the CCMAS and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for April 13, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST.
The public meeting will take place via Video Teleconference hosted by the U.S. Codex Office. Documents related to the 41st Session of the CCMAS will be accessible via the internet at the following address:
Dr. Gregory Noonan, U.S. Delegate to the 41st Session of the CCMAS, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.
The Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) are:
(a) To define the criteria appropriate to Codex Methods of Analysis and Sampling;
(b) to serve as a coordinating body for Codex with other international groups working in methods of analysis and sampling and quality assurance systems for laboratories;
(c) to specify, on the basis of final recommendations submitted to it by the other bodies referred to in (b) above,
(d) to consider, amend, if necessary, and endorse, as appropriate, methods of analysis and sampling proposed by Codex (Commodity) Committees, except that methods of analysis and sampling for residues of pesticides or veterinary drugs in food, the assessment of microbiological quality and safety in food, and the assessment of specifications for food additives, do not fall within the terms of reference of this Committee;
(e) to elaborate sampling plans and procedures, as may be required;
(f) to consider specific sampling and analysis problems submitted to it by the Commission or any of its Committees; and
(g) to define procedures, protocols, guidelines, or related texts for the assessment of food laboratory proficiency, as well as quality assurance systems for laboratories.
The CCMAS is hosted by Hungary. The United States attends CCMAS as a member country of Codex.
The following items on the Agenda for the 41st Session of the CCMAS will be discussed during the public meeting:
At the April 13, 2021 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Dr. Gregory Noonan, U.S. Delegate for the 41st Session of the CCMAS (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, the U.S. Codex Office will announce this
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
U.S. Codex Office, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The U.S Codex Office is sponsoring a public meeting on March 29, 2021. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 5th Session of the Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which will convene virtually April 26-30, 2021. The U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius and the Acting Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 5th Session of the CCSCH and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for March 29, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST.
The public meeting will take place via Video Teleconference hosted by the U.S. Codex Office. Documents related to the 5th Session of the CCSCH will be accessible via the internet at the following address:
Mr. Dorian A. LaFond, U.S. Delegate to the 5th Session of the CCSCH, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
For Further Information about the 5th Session of the CCSCH, contact the U.S. Delegate, Mr. Dorian A. LaFond, International Standards Coordinator for the Agricultural Marketing Service Specialty Crops Program, Specialty Crops Inspection Division at Stop 0247, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0247, Tel: 202-690-4944, Cell: 202-577-5583, Fax: 202-720-0016 or Email:
Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.
The Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH) are:
(a) To elaborate worldwide standards for spices and culinary herbs in their dried and dehydrated state in whole, ground, and cracked or crushed form; and
(b) To consult, as necessary, with other international organizations in the standards development process to avoid duplication.
The CCSCH is hosted by India. The United States attends CCSCH as a member country of Codex.
The following items on the Agenda for the 5th Session of the CCSCH will be discussed during the public meeting:
At the March 29, 2021 public meeting, the draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Mr. Dorian A. LaFond, U.S. Delegate for the 5th Session of the CCSCH (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, the U.S. Codex Office will announce this
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Commission public briefing,
Friday, February 26, 2021, 10:00 a.m. ET.
Virtual Briefing and Business Meeting.
Angelia Rorison (202) 376-8359; TTY: (202) 376-8116;
On Friday, February 26, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a virtual briefing regarding the state of bail and pretrial detention practices, including the involvement of the private bail industry, various mechanisms for reform, and the potential regulatory role of the federal government. The briefing will examine how cash bail impacts the fair administration of justice and whether it operates in a manner that denies equal protection of the law to individuals on the basis of race or another protected class. At this public briefing, Commissioners will hear from subject matter experts such as government officials, academics, law enforcement professionals, advocates, and impacted persons.
This briefing is open to the public via Weblink. The event will live-stream at
Computer assisted real-time transcription (CART) will be provided. The web link to access CART (in English) on Friday, February 26, 2021, is
To request additional accommodations, persons with disabilities should email
**Public Comments will be accepted through written testimony.
Schedule is subject to change.
In addition to the testimony collected on Friday, February 26, 2021, via virtual briefing, the Commission welcomes the submission of material for consideration as we prepare our report. Please submit such information to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On January 28, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the Court) entered final judgment sustaining the final results of remand redetermination pursuant to court order by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from India. Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is
Applicable February 7, 2021.
Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.
On April 20, 2018, Commerce published its final results of the changed circumstances review of SSB from India.
On December 20, 2019, the Court remanded aspects of the
On August 14, 2020, the Court sustained Commerce's use of the NWR Test but the Court determined that Commerce's use of AFA with respect to Venus to be unsupported by substantial evidence and remanded the
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending the
Because the revised antidumping duty margin for Venus remains above
Because Venus has been subject to a subsequent administrative review which established a revised cash deposit rate for Venus,
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On January 6, 2021, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published its preliminary determination in the less-than-fair-value investigation of passenger vehicle and light truck (PVLT) tires from Taiwan in the
Applicable February 10, 2021.
Chien-Min Yang or Lauren Caserta, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
On January 6, 2021, Commerce published in the
The period of investigation is April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020.
The product covered by this investigation is PVLT tires from Taiwan. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce “will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any significant ministerial error by amending the preliminary determination . . . .” A ministerial error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” A significant ministerial error is defined as a ministerial error, the correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, would result in: (1) A change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the original preliminary determination; or (2) a difference between a weighted-average dumping margin of zero or
The petitioner timely alleged that Commerce made a ministerial error involving one of Nankang's programs but noted that the error was not significant.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(g)(1), Commerce's error in the application of the arm's-length test for Cheng Shin is significant because its correction results in a change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the
We are amending the
The collection of cash deposits and suspension of liquidation will be revised according to the rates established in this amended preliminary determination, in accordance with section 773(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Because these amended rates result in reduced cash deposit rates, they will be effective retroactively to January 6, 2021, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 773(f) of the Act, we intend to notify the International Trade Commission of our amended preliminary determination.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the amended preliminary determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224.
This amended preliminary determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 773(f) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable February 10, 2021.
Joshua DeMoss, 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) 482-3362.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 4, 2020.
The products covered by this investigation are seamless pipe from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, the
The deadline to submit scope case briefs was established in the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export price in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Commerce has calculated normal value in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary determination,
Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that, in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for ILJIN, the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duties equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondent listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on-site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification.
Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments will be provided to interested parties at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides 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 exporters who account for a significant proportion 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. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce's regulations requires that a request by the exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On January 8, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), ILJIN requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our affirmative preliminary determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation is seamless carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm) in nominal outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (
Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) All pipes meeting aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing specifications, including pipe produced to the ASTM A-822 standard; (2) all pipes meeting the chemical requirements of ASTM A-335, whether finished or unfinished; and (3) unattached couplings. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are (1) all mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat exchange tubing, except when such products conform to the dimensional requirements,
Subject seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe are normally entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050, 7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 7304.39.0072, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015, 7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, and 7304.59.8070. The HTSUS subheadings and specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from Ukraine is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable February 10, 2021.
Lilit Astvatsatrian, 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) 482-6412.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 4, 2020.
The products covered by this investigation are seamless pipe from Ukraine. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, the
The deadline to submit scope case briefs was established in the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce calculated constructed export prices in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Commerce calculated normal value in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination,
Section 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, this rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the collapsed entity Interpipe Ukraine LLC, PJSC Interpipe Niznedneprovksy Tube Rolling Plant, and LLC Interpipe Niko Tube (collectively Interpipe),
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondent listed in the table above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not the respondent identified in the table above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on-site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification.
Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Interested parties will be notified of a timeline for the submission of such case briefs and written comments at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline for case briefs. Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of hearing participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm the date and time of the hearing two days before the scheduled hearing date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides 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 exporters who account for a significant proportion 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. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce's regulations requires that a request by the exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On January 11, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Interpipe requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, then the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of seamless pipe from Ukraine are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation is seamless carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm) in nominal outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (
Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) All pipes meeting aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing specifications, including pipe produced to the ASTM A-822 standard; (2) all pipes meeting the chemical requirements of ASTM A-335, whether finished or unfinished; and (3) unattached couplings. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are (1) all mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat exchange tubing, except when such products conform to the dimensional requirements,
Subject seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe are normally entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050, 7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 7304.39.0072, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015, 7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, and 7304.59.8070. The HTSUS subheadings and specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from the Russian Federation (Russia) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable February 10, 2021.
Caitlin Monks, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2670.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b)
The products covered by this investigation are seamless pipe from Russia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, the
The deadline to submit scope case briefs was established in the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination,
Section 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, this rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for PAO TMK and Volzhsky Pipe Plant (collectively, TMK), the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed in the table above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified in the table above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on-site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification.
Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Interested parties will be notified of a timeline for the submission of such case briefs and written comments at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline for case briefs. Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of hearing participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm the date and time of the hearing two days before the scheduled hearing date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides 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 exporters who account for a significant proportion 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. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce's regulations requires that a request by the exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On January 5, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), TMK requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, then the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of seamless pipe from Russia are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation is seamless carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm) in nominal outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (
Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) All pipes meeting aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing specifications, including pipe produced to the ASTM A-822 standard; (2) all pipes meeting the chemical requirements of ASTM A-335, whether finished or unfinished; and (3) unattached couplings. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are (1) all mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat exchange tubing, except when such products conform to the dimensional requirements,
Subject seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe are normally entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050, 7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024,
The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Request for comments; reopening of comment period.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) published a request for comments in the
You may submit comments and responses to the questions below by one of the following methods:
(a)
(b)
Charisma Hampton, USPTO, Office of Policy and International Affairs, at
To assist in gathering public input, the USPTO published questions and sought all input relevant to the development of guidelines, action plans, strategies, and best practices for establishing a public-private national consumer awareness campaign designed to educate consumers on the direct and indirect costs and risks of counterfeit and pirated goods.
Specifically, in that earlier notice, the USPTO sought the following types of information utilized or under
The notice requested public comments on or before January 4, 2021.
Through this notice, the USPTO is reopening the period for public comment until March 12, 2021, to give interested members of the public additional time to submit comments and provide information on the same topics. All other information and instructions to commenters provided in the November 17, 2020, notice remain unchanged. Previously submitted comments do not need to be resubmitted.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of a currently approved collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 12, 2021.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carrie Clarady, 202-245-6347.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The 2022 survey is being funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Safe and Supportive Schools (previously known as the Office of Safe and Healthy Students) and conducted
This request is to conduct the 2022 administration of the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS). As part of SSOCS:2022 development, cognitive testing on new COVID-19 pandemic items will be conducted during the winter and spring of 2021, scheduled to be completed in late-spring 2021. The wording and design of these items may be modified in response to the findings of this testing and, as such, will be updated in a change request, tentatively scheduled for October 2021.
Institute of Educational Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 12, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Daphne Garcia, 202-245-6592.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
How GEAR UP grantees provide scholarships to support students' enrollment and persistence in college is of interest for several reasons. First, this component distinguishes GEAR UP from other federal college access programs that serve primarily low-income students or those from high need schools. Second, the 2008 HEA reauthorization gave state grantees flexibility in how they implement and fund the scholarships. While program statute requires states to set aside at least half of their GEAR UP funds to provide scholarships (states that do are referred to as “set-aside states”), states may be granted a waiver to devote all of their GEAR UP funds to other activities (referred to as “waiver states”) if they can ensure that GEAR UP students have access to alternative scholarship funds—such as those that are state-funded. The reauthorization also changed other aspects of the scholarship component, such as the minimum amount and which students must be eligible to receive this financial aid.
Little information is available about how states are carrying out these requirements or the challenges they face in administering this part of the GEAR UP program. The data collection for this study will examine the scholarship practices of all states that received a GEAR UP grant since fiscal year 2011, the first year the scholarship changes went into effect. ED plans to use the study results to inform program improvement, both current efforts and in the future through the upcoming reauthorization of the HEA.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Griddy Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 24, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, to make information publicly available and to publish information in the
Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document must be received on or before March 12, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0077, and the specific case number for the chemical substance related to your comment, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket,
This document provides the receipt and status reports for the period from 12/01/2020 to 12/31/2020. The Agency is providing notice of receipt of PMNs, SNUNs and MCANs (including amended notices and test information); an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (Biotech exemption); TMEs, both pending and/or concluded; NOCs to manufacture a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.
EPA is also providing information on its website about cases reviewed under the amended TSCA, including the section 5 PMN/SNUN/MCAN and exemption notices received, the date of receipt, the final EPA determination on the notice, and the effective date of EPA's determination for PMN/SNUN/MCAN notices on its website at:
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601
Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, or to manufacture or process a chemical substance in a non-exempt manner for a use that EPA has determined is a significant new use, is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, MCAN or SNUN, as appropriate, before initiating the activity. EPA will review the notice, make a risk determination on the chemical substance or significant new use, and take appropriate action as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3).
TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:
Under TSCA sections 5 and 8 and EPA regulations, EPA is required to publish in the
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
No.
1.
2.
In the past, EPA has published individual notices reflecting the status of TSCA section 5 filings received, pending or concluded. In 1995, the Agency modified its approach and streamlined the information published in the
For the PMN/SNUN/MCANs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period, Table I provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the notices screened by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the notice that indicates whether the submission is an
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that this information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI. Submissions which are initial submissions will not have a letter following the case number. Submissions which are amendments to previous submissions will have a case number followed by the letter “A” (
In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC including whether the submission was an initial or amended submission, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC, a notation of the type of amendment (
In Table III of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the test information that has been received during this time-period: The EPA case number assigned to the test information; the date the test information was received by EPA, the type of test information submitted, and chemical substance identity.
If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA's technical information contact or general information contact as described under
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by the registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide product registrations and to amend certain product registrations to terminate uses. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the requests, or unless the registrants withdraw their requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registrations have been cancelled and uses terminated only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.
Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0060, by one of the following methods:
Submit written withdrawal request by mail: Christopher Green, Registration Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
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
Christopher Green, Registration Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0367; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
1.
2.
This notice announces receipt by EPA of requests from registrants to cancel certain pesticide products and amend product registrations to terminate certain uses registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). The affected products and the registrants making the requests are identified in Tables 1-3 of this unit.
Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant or if the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, EPA intends to issue an order in the
Table 3 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all the registrants of the products listed in Tables 1 & 2 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
The registrants listed in Table 3 of Unit II have requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for product cancellation or use termination should submit the withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the action. If the requests for voluntary cancellation and amendments to terminate uses are granted, the Agency intends to publish the cancellation order in the
In any order issued in response to these requests for cancellation of product registrations and for amendments to terminate uses, EPA proposes to include the following provisions for the treatment of any existing stocks of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of Unit II.
For all other voluntary product cancellations, identified in Table 1 of Unit II, registrants will be permitted to sell and distribute existing stocks of voluntarily canceled products for 1 year after the effective date of the cancellation, which will be the date of publication of the cancellation order in the
Once EPA has approved product labels reflecting the requested amendment to terminate uses, identified in Table 2 of Unit II, registrants will be permitted to sell or distribute products under the previously approved labeling for a period of 18-months after the date of
Persons other than the registrant may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of canceled products and products whose labels include the terminated uses until supplies are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that
7 U.S.C. 136
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it can further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before March 12, 2021.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
The Commission believes that C-band spectrum for terrestrial wireless uses will play a significant role in bringing next-generation services like 5G to the American public and assuring American leadership in the 5G ecosystem. The agency took action to make this valuable spectrum resource available for new terrestrial wireless uses as quickly as possible, while also preserving the continued operation of existing Fixed Satellite Services (FSS) available during and after the transition.
In the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, the Commission concluded that a public auction of the lower 280 megahertz of the C-band will best carry out our goals, and the agency will add a mobile allocation to the 3.7-4.0 GHz band so that next-generation services such as 5G can use the band. Relying on the Emerging Technologies framework, the Commission adopted a process to relocate FSS operations into the upper 200 megahertz of the band, while fully reimbursing existing operators for the costs of this relocation and offering accelerated relocation payments to encourage a speedy transition. The Commission also adopted service and technical rules for overlay licensees in the 280 megahertz of spectrum designated for transition to flexible use.
Among other information collection requirements in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, the Commission has adopted several requirements, described in the text, related to the protection of TT&C earth stations and coordination with 3.7 GHz Service licensees. In a section of
Pursuant to paragraph 388 of the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, the Commission requires that the TT&C operators make available certain pertinent technical information about their systems upon request by licensees in the 3.7 GHz Service to ensure the protection of TT&C operations. In addition, paragraph 389 of the 3.7 GHz Report and Order includes the requirement that, in the event of a claim by a TT&C earth station operating in 4.0-4.2 GHz of harmful interference by a 3.7 GHZ operator, the earth station operator must demonstrate that that have installed a filter that complies with the mask requirement prescribed by the Commission. This requirement will facilitate an efficient and safe transition by requiring earth station operators to demonstrate their compliance with the mask requirements, thereby minimizing the risk of interference.
On November 18, 2011, the Commission released an order comprehensively reforming and modernizing the universal service and intercarrier compensation systems to ensure that robust, affordable voice and broadband service, both fixed and mobile, are available to Americans throughout the nation. Connect America Fund et al., Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-161 (USF/ICC Transformation Order). In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission, among other things, created (1) the Connect America Fund (CAF), to help make broadband available to homes, businesses, and community anchor institutions in areas that do not, or would not otherwise, have broadband, (2) the Mobility Fund, to ensure the availability of mobile broadband networks in areas where a private-sector business case, (3) the Remote Areas Fund (RAF), to ensure that Americans living in the most remote areas in the nation, where the cost of deploying traditional terrestrial broadband networks is extremely high, can obtain affordable access through alternative technology platforms, including satellite and unlicensed wireless services. The USF/ICC Transformation Order directed that support under CAF Phase II, the Mobility Fund, and the RAF be awarded by competitive bidding. The Commission adopted rules to implement the reforms it adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, including rules in Part 1, Subpart AA of the Commission's rules governing competitive bidding for universal service support generally. See 47 CFR 1.21001-1.21004.
On October 27, 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in which it, among other things, amended its existing Part 1, Subpart AA general universal service competitive bidding rules to codify policies and procedures applicable to the universal service auction application process that have been adopted in its recent universal service auctions, better align provisions in the universal service competitive bidding rules with like provisions in the Commission's spectrum auction rules, and make other updates for consistency, clarification, and other purposes that would apply in all universal service auctions. Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America, Report and Order, FCC 20-150 (5G Fund Report and Order). The amended Part 1, Subpart AA rules adopted in the 5G Fund Report and Order apply to applicants seeking to participate in future Commission auctions for universal service support.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it can further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before March 12, 2021.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
Specifically pertaining to this Information Collection, in the All-Digital AM Broadcasting Report and Order, the Commission requires AM broadcast stations to electronically file a digital notification using the existing FCC Form 335-AM Digital Notification (or any successor notification form) to notify the Commission of the following changes: (1) The commencement of new all-digital operation; (2) an increase in nominal power of an all-digital AM station; or (3) a transition from core-only to enhanced operating mode. Although we direct broadcasters to use the current Form 335-AM for all-digital notifications, additional information is required for notification of AM all-digital operations specifically. Therefore, until the Form 335-AM is updated to display the new all-digital operation requirements, we direct filers to select “N/A” as appropriate within the form and submit an attachment containing the following information. These new all-digital AM notification requirements have been added to new section 73.406 of the Commission's rules.
(a) The type of notification (all-digital notification, increase in nominal power, reduction in nominal power, transition from core-only to enhanced, transition from enhanced to core-only, reversion from all-digital to hybrid or analog operation);
(b) the date that new or modified all-digital operation will commence or has ceased;
(c) a certification that the all-digital operations will conform to the relevant nominal power and spectral emissions limits;
(d) the nominal power of the all-digital station;
(e) a certification that the all-digital station complies with all EAS requirements; and
(f) if a notification of commencement of new all-digital service or a nominal power change, whether the station is operating in core-only or enhanced mode.
The All-Digital AM Broadcasting Report and Order also revises and reorganizes the digital notification requirements formally contained in section 73.404(e) of the rules by removing paragraph 73.404(e) and adding new section 73.406 Notification.
Hybrid AM and FM licensees must electronically file a digital notification to the Commission in Washington, DC, within 10 days of commencing IBOC digital operation. All-digital licensees must file a digital notification within 10 days of the following changes: (1) Any reduction in nominal power of an all-digital AM station; (2) a transition from enhanced to core-only operating mode; or (3) a reversion from all-digital to hybrid or analog operation. All-digital licensees will not be permitted to commence operation sooner than 30 calendar days from public notice of
(a) Every digital notification must include the following information:
(1) The call sign and facility identification number of the station;
(2) If applicable, the date on which the new or modified IBOC operation commenced or ceased;
(3) The name and telephone number of a technical representative the Commission can call in the event of interference;
(4) A certification that the operation will not cause human exposure to levels of radio frequency radiation in excess of the limits specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter and is therefore categorically excluded from environmental processing pursuant to § 1.1306(b) of this chapter. Any station that cannot certify compliance must submit an environmental assessment (“EA”) pursuant to § 1.1311 of this chapter and may not commence IBOC operation until such EA is ruled upon by the Commission.
(b) Each AM digital notification must also include the following information:
(1) A certification that the IBOC DAB facilities conform to applicable nominal power limits and emissions mask limits;
(2) The nominal power of the station; if separate analog and digital transmitters are used, the nominal power for each transmitter;
(3) If applicable, the amount of any reduction in an AM station's digital carriers;
(4) For all-digital stations, the type of notification (all-digital notification, increase in nominal power, reduction in nominal power, transition from core-only to enhanced, transition from enhanced to core-only, reversion from all-digital to hybrid or analog operation);
(5) For all-digital stations, if a notification of commencement of new all-digital service or a nominal power change, whether the station is operating in core-only or enhanced mode; and
(6) For all-digital stations, a certification that the all-digital station complies with all EAS requirements.
(c) Each FM digital notification must also include the following information:
(1) A certification that the IBOC DAB facilities conform to the HD Radio emissions mask limits;
(2) FM digital effective radiated power used and certification that the FM analog effective radiated power remains as authorized;
(3) If applicable, the geographic coordinates, elevation data, and license file number of the auxiliary antenna employed by an FM station as a separate digital antenna; and
(4) If applicable, for FM systems employing interleaved antenna bays, a certification that adequate filtering and/or isolation equipment has been installed to prevent spurious emissions in excess of the limits specified in § 73.317.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than February 25, 2021.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than February 25, 2021.
1.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement; request for comment.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2021.
Interested parties may file comments online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Guy C. Ward (312-960-5612), Midwest Regional Office, John C. Kluczynski Federal Building, 230 South Dearborn Street, Suite 3030, Chicago, IL 60604.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 12, 2021. Write “Amazon Flex; File No. 192 3123” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Amazon Flex; File No. 192 3123” 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 D), 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 D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website 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.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc. (“Amazon”). The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
Amazon operates Amazon Flex, a gig economy program through which consumers can become “drivers” for Amazon and, using their own vehicles, deliver products and groceries to Amazon customers. Amazon pays drivers for making deliveries, and for some types of deliveries, allows customers to tip the drivers via the app or website used to place the order. Amazon consistently represents to both drivers and customers that it passes on 100% of customer tips to drivers. However, from late 2016 through August 2019, Amazon withheld nearly a third of the tips meant for drivers, about $61 million in total, despite its representations that it would provide drivers 100% of customer tips. Amazon continued diverting drivers' tips in this way for over two and a half years despite hundreds of complaints from drivers and critical media reports. Amazon changed its practices only after the FTC issued a Civil Investigative Demand to the company in May 2019.
The Commission's proposed complaint alleges that Amazon has violated Section 5 of the FTC Act. In particular, the proposed complaint alleges Amazon misrepresented to both customers and drivers that it would give drivers 100% of customer tips in addition to the pay Amazon offered.
The proposed order includes equitable monetary relief and injunctive provisions to prevent Amazon from engaging in the same or similar acts or practices in the future. Part I of the proposed order prohibits Amazon from misrepresenting to any consumer, including both customers and drivers: (a) The income a driver is likely to earn, (b) the amount Amazon will pay drivers, (c) that Amazon will give drivers customer tips in addition to Amazon's contribution to drivers' earnings, (d) the percentage or amount of any customer tip a driver will receive, or (e) that any amount customers pay is a tip. Part II of the proposed order prohibits Amazon from changing the extent to which it uses a driver's tips toward Amazon's contribution to the driver's earnings without first obtaining express informed consent from the driver.
Part III of the proposed order requires Amazon to pay $61,710,583—the full amount of tips that Amazon improperly withheld from drivers. Part IV of the proposed order requires Amazon to provide sufficient information about drivers to enable the Commission to administer redress efficiently to drivers.
Parts V through VIII of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part V requires acknowledgments of the order. Part VI requires Amazon to notify the Commission of changes in corporate status for 10 years and mandates that the company submit an initial compliance report to the Commission. Part VII requires Amazon to create certain documents relating to its compliance with the order for 10 years and to retain those documents for a 5-year period. Part VIII mandates that the company make available to the Commission information or subsequent compliance reports, as requested.
Finally, Part IX states that the proposed order will remain in effect for 20 years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
The internet-enabled gig economy is substantial and continues to grow. According to one study, U.S. families earning income from the internet-enabled gig economy rose from under 2% of the sample in 2013 to 4.5% by early 2018, with more than 5 million U.S. households earning some income from this type of work by 2018.
Consumer demand for the services offered by the gig economy surely contributes to this growth. But it would not be possible without the contributions of drivers, shoppers, designers, and other gig workers, whether seeking supplemental income or relying on one gig or a patchwork of gigs to get by.
The impact of the internet-enabled gig economy on workers is a matter of robust debate in Congress, state legislatures, popular referenda, academia, and elsewhere. The two authors of this joint statement may not agree on every aspect of this debate, including whether this novel business model is, on net, beneficial for consumers and workers.
Where we do agree—and what this case reflects—is the platforms that facilitate this gig economy must treat their workers fairly and non-deceptively, just as they must consumers, and the Federal Trade Commission should work to ensure they do. That is why this case resolving our investigation into Amazon.com, Inc.'s and its subsidiary Amazon Logistics, Inc.'s (collectively, “Amazon”) treatment of delivery drivers is so important.
The conduct alleged in the complaint is outrageous. According to the complaint, Amazon recruited delivery drivers (and, possibly, attracted customers) by promising that drivers would collect all the tips awarded them by Amazon customers. At a certain point, it decided to divert thirty percent of those tips from drivers to the company to subsidize the amounts it had committed to paying its drivers. The complaint alleges Amazon then went to great lengths to ensure no one would figure out what it was doing, by changing the way it presented earnings to drivers and drafting misleading answers for service representatives to give to drivers upset at being short-changed.
Our settlement with Amazon ensures these drivers will get back every dollar that was promised, every dollar that a customer chose to give as a tip for their service. That is a good result for an enforcement action under the FTC Act, the law we apply today. But we believe, given the importance of candor and fairness to workers in the gig economy, our current authorities could be improved. Congress can give us direct penalty authority to deter deception aimed at workers in the internet-enabled gig economy and rulemaking authority under the Administrative Procedure Act to address systemic and unfair practices that harm those workers.
Clear rules and the threat of substantial civil penalties can deter wrongdoing. The authors of this statement do not always agree on the proper scope of rulemaking and penalty authority, but we do agree here. Authorizing the FTC to assess penalties to deter similar lawbreaking will help gig workers and make labor markets more efficient. The internet-enabled gig economy is new, innovative, and growing. We believe the modest reforms we propose here can help gig workers have a fairer shake at getting their benefit of the bargain from that growth, too.
Today, the FTC is sanctioning Amazon.com (NASDAQ: AMZN) for expanding its business empire by cheating its workers. In 2015, Amazon launched Flex, a package delivery service that was widely seen as a challenge to FedEx and UPS.
This theft did not go unnoticed by Amazon's drivers, many of whom expressed anger and confusion to the company. Rather than coming clean, Amazon took elaborate steps to mislead its drivers and conceal its theft, sending them canned responses that repeated the company's lies. The complaint charges that Amazon executives chose not to alter the practice, instead viewing drivers' complaints as a “PR risk,” which they sought to contain through deception.
Amazon's scheme ended after it was exposed, but it likely produced significant benefits for the company. First, by promising a higher base pay initially, Amazon was likely able to recruit drivers more quickly, particularly as the company tried to stand up Amazon Flex in time for the holiday season.
By the time this scheme was exposed in late 2019, Amazon Flex was far more established. In fact, that same year, the company quietly disclosed that it was slashing drivers' minimum pay by more than 15 percent, relative to what it promised in 2015.
Today's order provides substantial redress to the families victimized by Amazon's anticompetitive deception. However, this cannot be the only action we take to protect workers and families from dominant middlemen. The FTC will also need to carefully examine whether tech platforms are engaging in anticompetitive conduct that hoodwinks workers and crushes law-abiding competitors.
The Commission has historically taken a lax approach to worker abuse, entering no-consequences settlements even in naked wage-fixing matters that are criminal in nature.
I also agree with Acting Chairwoman Slaughter and Commissioner Phillips that preying on workers justifies punitive measures far beyond the restitution provided here, and I believe the FTC should act now to deploy dormant authorities to trigger civil penalties and other relief in cases like this one.
Companies should succeed only when they compete, not when they cheat or abuse their power. While
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, DoD, GSA, and NASA invite the public to comment on a revision and renewal concerning past performance information. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of Federal Government acquisitions, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. OMB has approved this information collection for use through April 30, 2021. DoD, GSA, and NASA propose that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years beyond the current expiration date.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will consider all comments received by April 12, 2021.
DoD, GSA, and NASA invite interested persons to submit comments on this collection through
Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, at telephone 202-969-7207, or
9000-0142, Past Performance Information.
This clearance covers the information that offerors and contractors must submit to comply with the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements:
•
•
•
The contracting officer will use the information to support future source selection decisions.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a revision and renewal of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding Buy American, trade agreements, and duty-free entry.
Submit comments on or before March 12, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Additionally, submit a copy to GSA through
Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, at telephone 202-969-7207, or
9000-0024, Buy American, Trade Agreements, and Duty-Free Entry.
This clearance covers the information that an offeror must submit in response to the requirements of the provisions and clauses in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 25 that relate to the following:
* The Buy American statute (41 U.S.C. chapter 83, and Executive Order 10582).
* The Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2501-2515), including the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement and various free trade agreements.
* The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5) (Recovery Act).
* Subchapters VIII and X of Chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202).
a. 52.225-2, Buy American Certificate. This provision requires the offeror to identify in its proposal supplies that do not meet the definition of domestic end product.
b. 52.225-4, Buy American—Free Trade Agreements—Israeli Trade Act Certificate. This provision requires a separate list of foreign products that are eligible under a trade agreement, and a list of all other foreign end products.
c. 52.225-6, Trade Agreements Certificate. This provision requires the offeror to certify that all end products are either U.S.-made or designated country end products, except as listed in paragraph (b) of the provision. Offerors are not allowed to provide other than a U.S.-made or designated country end product, unless the requirement is waived.
d. 52.225-8, Duty-Free Entry. This clause requires contractors to notify the contracting officer when they purchase foreign supplies, in order to determine whether the supplies should be duty-free. The notice shall identify the foreign supplies, estimate the amount of duty, and the country of origin. The contractor is not required to identify foreign supplies that are identical in nature to items purchased by the contractor or any subcontractor in connection with its commercial business, and segregation of these supplies to ensure use only on Government contracts containing duty-free entry provisions is not economical or feasible. In addition, all shipping documents and containers must specify
e. Construction provisions and clauses:
The listed provisions and clauses provide that an offeror or contractor requesting to use foreign construction material due to unreasonable cost of domestic construction material shall provide adequate information to permit evaluation of the request.
A 60-day notice was published in the
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, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. 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.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)-DP21-002, Epidemiologic Cohort Study of Interstitial Cystitis, March 30, 2021, 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., EST, which was published in the
The meeting on March 30, 2021 is being amended to change the time and should read as follows:
The meeting is closed to the public.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
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.,
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
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, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. 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.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
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, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. 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.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than March 12, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
A 60-day Notice published in the
The survey will also be administered to health care practitioners that use the self-query service provided by the NPDB. The self-queriers will be asked about their experiences of querying, the impact of having reports in the NPDB on their careers and health care organizations' perceptions, and their satisfaction with various NPDB products and services. Understanding self-queriers' satisfaction and their use of the information is an important component of the survey.
Proposed changes to this ICR include the following:
1. In the proposed entity survey, there are 37 modules and 258 questions. From the previous 2012 survey, there are 15 deleted questions and 13 new questions in addition to proposed changes to 12 survey questions.
2. In the proposed self-query survey, there are 22 modules and 88 questions. From the previous 2012 survey, there are five deleted questions and five new questions in addition to proposed changes to two survey questions.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment. The ICR is for extending the use of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0937-0191, which expires on April 30, 2021. Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before April 12, 2021.
Submit your comments to
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0937-0191-60D, and project title for reference, to Sherrette Funn, the Reports Clearance Officer,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Complementary and Integrative Health.
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.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and is open to the public as indicated below.
Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The Open Session will be open to the public via NIH Videocast. The URL link to access this meeting is
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Any member of the public may submit written comments no later than 15 days after the meeting.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given for the meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Advisory Council (CSAP NAC) on February 24, 2021.
The Council was established to advise the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, SAMHSA; and Director, CSAP concerning matters relating to the activities carried out by and through the Center and the policies respecting such activities.
The meeting will be open to the public and will include the discussion of substance use prevention priorities. The meeting will also include updates on CSAP program developments.
The meeting will be held via webcast and phone only. Attendance by the public on-site will not be available. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Council. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person on or before one week prior to the meeting. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations should notify the contact on or before one week prior to the meeting. Up to five minutes will be allotted for each presentation.
To participate in the meeting, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register at the SAMHSA Committees' website,
Substantive program information may be obtained after the meeting by accessing the SAMHSA Committee website,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved information collection for which approval has expired. FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before March 12, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
This proposed information collection previously published in the
In response, FEMA reiterates that FEMA regulations in 44 CFR 206.437 require development and updates to the State Administrative Plan by State Applicants/Recipients as a condition of receiving HMGP funding under section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170c. The State Administrative Plan is a procedural guide that details how the State administers the HMGP. The State, Territory, or Indian Tribal government (who acts as a recipient) must have a current administrative plan approved by the appropriate FEMA Regional Administrator before receiving HMGP funds. The administrative plan may take any form including a chapter within a comprehensive State mitigation program strategy. Additionally, States, Territories, and Indian Tribal governments are required to have an approved hazard mitigation plan as outlined in 44 CFR part 201. This hazard mitigation planning process
This information collection expired on January 31, 2021. FEMA is requesting a reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved information collection for which approval has expired. The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Department of Homeland Security.
Request for Information; reopening and extension of comment period.
The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 requires federal agencies to develop evidence-building plans to identify and address questions relevant to Agency strategy, programs, policies, regulations, management, and operations. On November 9, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a request for information (RFI) soliciting input from the public regarding potential priority questions that can guide evidence-building activities by. DHS is reopening and extending the comment period for the RFI.
Please send comments on or before March 31, 2021. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
You may submit comments via the
If you have questions about this notice, please contact Michael Stough, Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation, (202) 447-0518,
The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act, Pub. L. 115-435) requires each federal agency to develop, as part of the agency strategic plan issued every four years,
On November 9, 2020, DHS published an RFI soliciting input from the public to inform the development of the Department's evidence-building plan. 85 FR 71353. On January 27, 2021, President Biden issued a Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and
With the passage of the Homeland Security Act by Congress in November 2002, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) became a Cabinet-level agency to unite the Nation's approach to homeland security. DHS combined functions of 22 different agencies with broad responsibilities that collectively prevent attacks, mitigate threats, respond to national emergencies, preserve economic security, and preserve legacy agency functions. DHS is committed to evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of its programs, policies, and regulations. DHS will use its evidence-building plan to coordinate and communicate how evaluation, statistics, research, and analysis will be used to help the Department achieve its mission.
Through this RFI, DHS is soliciting suggestions from a broad array of stakeholders across public and private sectors that may be familiar with or interested in the work of DHS and wish to volunteer suggestions for studies that could help DHS improve the effectiveness and efficiency of DHS strategy, programs, policies and regulations. DHS invites suggestions in many forms—such as questions to be answered, hypotheses to be tested, or problems to be studied—and focused on any area of Department's work, including strategy, policy, programs, regulations, management, and operations. Responses to this RFI will inform the Department's ongoing development of a set of questions that will guide direction and evidence-building activities, such as foundational research, policy analysis, performance measurement, and program evaluation.
This RFI is for information and planning purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation or as creating or resulting in any obligation on the part of DHS.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before January 30, 2021, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted electronically by February 25, 2021.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before January 30, 2021. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resources:
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC on February 4, 2021. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor devices, wireless infrastructure equipment containing the same, and components thereof. The complainant names as respondents: Ericsson AB of Sweden; Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of Sweden; and Ericsson Inc. of Plano, TX. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3532”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
On January 19, 2021, the Department of Justice lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Alaska a proposed modification of the 2016 Consent Decree in
The proposed modification seeks to make changes to the Consent Decree entered by the Court on December 22, 2016 that required the City of Palmer (City) to implement various upgrades to its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to enable the City to comply with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342. Among these upgrades, the Consent Decree required that by August 31, 2020 the City install and operate secondary clarifiers which are basins specifically designed to provide effective gravity separation of settleable and suspended solids in biologically treated wastewater. See Consent Decree ¶ 11.d. The proposed modification extends this deadline until July 1, 2022 and requires that in the interim City undertake certain alternative measures that may enable it to meet its permit limits without the clarifiers.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed modification. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed modification may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $36.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 12, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Crystal Rennie by telephone at 202-693-0456, or by email at
The inspection and certification records required by the Standard on Mechanical Power Presses are intended to ensure that mechanical power presses are in safe operating condition, and that all safety devices are working properly. The failure of these safety devices could cause serious injury or death to a worker. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 12, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Crystal Rennie by telephone at 202-693-0456, or by email at
The Standard on Steel Erection requires that workers exposed to fall hazards receive specified training in the recognition and control of these hazards and that they are notified that building materials, components, steel structures, and fall protection equipment are safe for specific uses. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 12, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Crystal Rennie by telephone at 202-693-0456, or by email at
The standard requires employers to develop a written fire safety plan and written statements or policies that contain information about fire watches and fire response duties and responsibilities. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Office of Management and Budget
Notice.
The notice provides the list of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommended Federal real property for consideration by the Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB) for disposal, consolidation, or co-location and the standards and criteria used to assess the property.
Recommendations on Federal real property to be disposed may be submitted online at
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Contact Bill Hamele by phone at (202) 395-7583 and by email at
I.
II.
It is important to note that while OMB, with GSA's assistance, did conduct this evaluation of the agency-identified properties and is providing a list of properties for consideration of the PBRB, it is ultimately the responsibility of the PBRB to fully vet each property, as the PBRB, working with GSA, is charged with carrying out the disposals and consolidations. Like the High Value Asset process, OMB will expect that the PBRB provide the necessary financial information to weigh the likelihood of project by project success. Further, the availability of appropriations including appropriations of proceeds from the High Value Round disposals will be a critical determination of what is possible to execute, and that is currently unknown.
III.
This research was conducted by GSA with input from OMB. For each Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) predominant building use type, potential utilization rate approaches were identified and evaluated based on the criteria established in this section, including the ability to identify efficiency opportunities, provide performance data, and be consistent throughout each applicable category of space.
The results of the study revealed that only the FRPP building type “office” lends itself to a standard utilization metric. Utilization rates for office space are used by the private sector and a majority of federal agencies to manage their space and assess its efficient use. OMB and GSA recommends to PBRB that buildings reported to the FRPP with a building use code of “office” should utilize the following utilization rate calculation: Total Administrative Office Space (useable square feet) divided by Total Headcount = administrative Office Utilization Rate (usable square feet per person). This Administrative Office Utilization Rate formula focuses solely on that space which is commonly found in a commercial office setting: Workstations, private offices, collaboration areas, meeting spaces, and other standard support spaces, and associated internal circulation. Any space that is unique to the agency and does not have a commercial office equivalent (termed “special space”) is removed from the calculation. This special space is instead evaluated based on its efficiency relative to achieving the agency's programmatic goals and established design criteria.
For all other FRPP building types other than “office”, the study revealed that a clear and reliable utilization rate is not in common use within the government or the private sector, and that it is currently not feasible to create such rates without extensive and close collaboration among the government and the private sector. In some building types, there exist significant variations in programmatic purpose that prevent reliable comparisons between them. Creating a standard utilization rate for non-office building types would often provide a misleading and inaccurate efficiency measurements, particularly if comparison was made among agencies. Based on this, GSA recommends that non-office buildings identified in Agency Recommendations be evaluated individually by real estate professionals, based on the building's unique ability to meet mission requirements of the agency at that specific location, to assess how efficiently the building is being utilized.
IV.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-1304, “Safety-Related Steel Structures and Steel-Plate Composite Walls for other than Reactor Vessels and Containments.” DG-1304 is a new guide that proposes guidance to meet regulatory requirements for safety-related steel structures and steel-plate composite walls for other than reactor vessels. DG-1304 endorses, with exceptions and clarifications, the 2018 edition of American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/AISC) N690, “Specification for Safety-Related Steel Structures for Nuclear Facilities.”
Submit comments by March 29, 2021. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods, however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Edward O'Donnell, telephone: 301-415-3317, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0038 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, entitled, “Safety-Related Steel Structures and Steel-Plate Composite Walls for other than Reactor Vessels and Containments” is a proposed new guide temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1304. It proposes guidance to meet regulatory requirements for safety-related steel structures and steel-plate composite walls for other than reactor vessels and containments. It endorses with, exceptions and clarifications, the 2018 edition of ANSI/AISC N690-2018, “Specification for Safety-Related Steel Structures for Nuclear Facilities.”
The staff is also issuing for public comment a draft regulatory analysis (ADAMS Accession No. ML20339A559). The staff develops a regulatory analysis to assess the value of issuing or revising a regulatory guide as well as alternative courses of action.
Issuance of DG-1304, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as that term is defined in title 10 of the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) on March 16, 2021. A sample of agenda items to be discussed during the public session includes: An overview of fiscal year 2020 medical related events; a discussion on the status of the NRC's patient release evaluation of emerging brachytherapy sources; a discussion on calibration procedures for existing and emerging brachytherapy sources; a discussion on the current ACMUI reporting structure; and an overview on the consequences of radiopharmaceutical extravasation and therapeutic interventions in nuclear medicine. The agenda is subject to change. The current agenda and any updates will be available on the ACMUI's Meetings and Related Documents web page at
Ms. Kellee Jamerson, email:
The ACMUI Chair, Darlene F. Metter, M.D., will preside over the meeting. Dr. Metter will conduct the meeting in a manner that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following procedures apply to public participation in the meeting:
1. Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit an electronic copy to Ms. Jamerson using the contact information listed above. All submittals must be received by the close of business on March 10, 2021 and must only pertain to the topics on the agenda.
2. Questions and comments from members of the public will be permitted during the meeting, at the discretion of the ACMUI Chairman.
3. The draft transcript and meeting summary will be available on ACMUI's website
4. Persons who require special services, such as those for the hearing impaired, should notify Ms. Jamerson of their planned participation.
This meeting will be held in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (primarily Section 161a); the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a renewal with minor edits of information collection request (ICR), SF 2800—Application for Death Benefits (CSRS) and SF 2800A—Documentation and Elections in Support of Application for Death Benefits When Deceased Was an Employee at the Time of Death (CSRS). We have updated the way we display the OMB control number and there are editorial changes to the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 12, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by the following method:
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing at
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection (OMB No. 3206-0121). The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 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,
Standard Form 2800 is needed to collect information so that OPM can pay death benefits to the survivors of Federal employees and annuitants. Standard Form 2800A is needed for deaths in service so that survivors can make the needed elections regarding military service.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 3, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to introduce a new credit applicable to Customer Electronic executions. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective February 1, 2021. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below.
The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule to add a new credit for Customer Electronic Simple and Complex executions based on an ATP Holder's achievement of certain volume thresholds. Specifically, an ATP Holder that executes the requisite volume in Complex CUBE Auctions, Customer Electronic executions, and Professional (as defined in Section I.H. of the Fee Schedule) Electronic executions will earn a $0.10 per contract credit on Customer Electronic executions, excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC Transactions, and orders routed to another exchange. The Exchange proposes to introduce this pricing on February 1, 2021.
Section I.H. of the Fee Schedule currently provides incentives for ATP Holders that increase their Electronic volume in the Professional Customer, Broker Dealer, Non-NYSE American Options Market Maker, and Firm ranges (collectively, the “Professional” range).
The Exchange proposes to modify Section I.H. to provide ATP Holders with a new credit of $0.10 per contract on Customer Electronic Simple and Complex executions (excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC Transactions, and orders routed to another exchange), provided that each of three monthly volume qualifications are met: (a) 15,000 Contracts ADV from Initiating CUBE Orders in Complex CUBE Auctions; (b) Customer Electronic executions of 0.05% of TCADV, excluding CUBE Auctions, QCC Transactions, and volume from orders routed to another exchange; and (c) Professional Electronic executions of 0.03% of TCADV.
The Exchange believes the proposed credit will continue to incent ATP Holders to direct order flow to the Exchange and also encourage ATP Holders to engage in a variety of transactions on the Exchange, thereby promoting market depth, facilitating tighter spreads, and enhancing price discovery to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise, changes to exchange transaction fees and rebates can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
The proposed rule change is designed to continue to incent ATP Holders to direct liquidity to the Exchange in a variety of forms and from a variety of sources, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery, and price improvement and enhancing order execution opportunities for market participants. In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide ATP Holders with a credit for achieving certain volume goals in different types of executions, consistent with credits offered through a similarly-structured program on a competing options exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed credit is reasonably designed to encourage ATP Holders to execute a variety of orders on the Exchange and that having multiple volume criteria to qualify for the proposed credit should encourage greater use of the Exchange by all ATP Holders, which may lead to greater opportunities to trade—and for price improvement—for all participants.
Further, the Exchange believes the proposed new credit would continue to attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange generally and would therefore benefit all market participants through increased opportunities to trade at potentially improved prices, as well as by enhancing price discovery.
Finally, to the extent the proposed fees and credits encourage greater volume and liquidity, the Exchange believes the proposed change would continue to improve the Exchange's overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants. In the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the Exchange operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to maintain its market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable allocation of its fees and credits. The proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted on the Exchange and ATP Holders can opt to avail themselves of the incentive or not. Moreover, the proposal is designed to encourage ATP Holders and their affiliated or appointed parties to aggregate their executions at the Exchange as a primary execution venue. To the extent that the proposed change continues to attract more executions to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, continue to attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed modifications would be available to all similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange's fees and credits are designed to continue to encourage greater use of the Exchange, which may lead to greater opportunities to trade—and for price improvement—for all participants.
The proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted on the Exchange and ATP Holders are not obligated to try to achieve the incentive. Rather, the proposal is designed to continue to encourage participants to utilize the Exchange as a primary trading venue (if they have not done so previously) or increase Electronic volume sent to the Exchange. To the extent that the proposed change continues to attract more executions—and executions of varying types—to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would continue to improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery. The resulting volume and liquidity would continue to provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads to all market participants and thus would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
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.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would continue to encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees and credits in a manner designed to encourage ATP Holders to direct trading interest to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and to attract order flow. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will encourage ATP Holders to direct increased Electronic volume to the Exchange, thereby increasing the number of executions (and executions of varying types) on the Exchange and continuing to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market quality and increased opportunities for price improvement.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes could promote competition between the Exchange and other execution venues by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form N-14 (17 CFR 239.23) is the form for registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
Estimates of the average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. The collection of information under Form N-14 is mandatory. The information provided under Form N-14 will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
As summarized in Table 1 above, the Commission has previously estimated that about 253 funds will make about 253 filings on Form N-14 each year, incurring 125,883 hours of internal hour burden at a cost of about $43.78 million.
The amendments to Form N-14 to permit BDCs to incorporate certain information by reference into that form to the same extent as registered closed-end fund are expected to decrease the burden and costs for BDCs that prepare and file Forms N-14. As summarized in Table 1 above, we estimate that the total internal burden associated with N-14 will be 125,260 hours, at a cost of approximately $37,856,382.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following website,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule amendment to allow the Invesco Focused Discovery Growth ETF and Invesco Select Growth ETF (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”), each a series of the Invesco Actively Managed Exchange-Traded Fund Trust (the “Trust”), to strike and publish multiple intra-day net asset values (“NAVs”) and an end-of-day NAV. The shares of each Fund (the “Shares”) would continue to comply with all of the listing standards set forth under Rule 14.11(m).
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposed and the Commission approved a rule to permit the listing and trading of the Shares of each Fund.
The NAV represents the value of a fund's assets minus its liabilities divided by the number of shares outstanding and is used in valuing exchange-traded products (“ETPs”), including Tracking Fund Shares. By way of background, an ETP issues shares that can be bought or sold throughout the day in the secondary market at a market-determined price. Authorized participants that have contractual arrangements with the ETP (or its distributor) purchase and redeem ETP shares directly from the ETP in blocks called creation units at a price equal to the next NAV, and may then purchase or sell individual ETP shares in the secondary market at market-determined prices. ETPs trade at market prices, but the market price typically will be more or less than the fund's
In order for the arbitrage mechanism described above to operated efficiently, market participants need to be able to estimate, with high accuracy, the value of the ETP's holdings, such that it can then observe instances when the value of such holdings, on a per-share basis, is higher or lower than the current trading price of the shares on an exchange. In the case of Tracking Fund Shares, the applicable ETP disseminates various information to achieve that goal, while not publishing a full list of fund holdings daily.
Generally, ETPs must calculate the NAV at least once every business day, which is typically done at market close (
As noted in the Initial Filing, Shares of each of the Funds are offered by the Trust, which is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company and has filed a registration statement on behalf of the Funds on Form N-1A with the Commission.
As explained above, the calculation of NAV provides the basis for arbitrage, which is an instrumental mechanism in ensuring ETP investors are treated equitably when buying and selling fund shares. The Funds seek to further reduce market participants' risk and to provide intra-day price certainty by striking and publishing its NAV more than once during each Business Day.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposal to allow the Funds to strike and publish multiple intra-day NAVs will provide the marketplace with additional information related to each
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change, rather, will provide additional information to market participants thereby reducing market participants risk and intra-day price uncertainty which will allow the Fund to better compete in the marketplace, thus enhancing competition among both market participants and listing venues, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on 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.
On May 19, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Request for comment.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”) is seeking comment on potential reform measures for money market funds, as highlighted in a recent report of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets (“PWG”). Public comments on the potential policy measures will help inform consideration of reforms to improve the resilience of money market funds and broader short-term funding markets.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Studies, memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this request for comment. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made available on the Commission's website. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at
Comments should be received on or before April 12, 2021.
Adam Lovell or Elizabeth Miller, Senior Counsels; Angela Mokodean, Branch Chief; Thoreau Bartmann, Senior Special Counsel; Viktoria Baklanova, Senior Financial Analyst; or Brian Johnson, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6792, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8549.
The PWG has studied the effects of the growing economic concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 on short-term funding markets and, in particular, on money market funds.
The Commission requests comments on the Report. Comments received will enable the Commission and other relevant financial regulators to consider more comprehensively the potential policy measures the Report identifies and help inform possible money market fund reforms.
We request comment on the potential policy measures described in the Report both individually and in combination. We also request comment on the effectiveness of previously-enacted money market fund reforms, and the effectiveness of implementing policy measures described in the Report in addition to, or in place of, previously-enacted reforms. Commenters should address the effectiveness of the measures in: (1) Addressing money market funds' structural vulnerabilities that can contribute to stress in short-term funding markets; (2) improving the resilience and functioning of short-term funding markets; and (3) reducing the likelihood that official sector interventions will be needed to prevent or halt future money market fund runs, or to address stresses in short-term funding markets more generally. Commenters also may address the potential impact of the measures on money market fund investors, fund managers, issuers of short-term debt, and other stakeholders. In addition, we are interested in comments on other topics commenters believe are relevant to further money market fund reform, including other approaches for improving the resilience of money market funds and short-term funding markets generally. We encourage commenters to submit empirical data and other information in support of their comments.
By the Commission.
In March 2020, short-term funding markets came under sharp stress amid growing economic concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic and an overall flight to liquidity and quality among investors. Instruments underlying these markets include short-term U.S. Treasury securities, short-term agency securities, short-term municipal securities, commercial paper (“CP”), and negotiable certificates of deposit issued by domestic and foreign banks (“NCDs”). Money market funds (“MMFs”) are significant participants in these markets, facilitating investment by a broad range of individuals and institutions in the relevant short-term instruments. Because these short-term instruments tend to have relatively stable values and MMFs offer daily redemptions, investors in MMFs often expect to receive immediate liquidity with limited price volatility. However, in times of stress, these expectations may not match market conditions, causing investors to seek to liquidate
The economic and public policy considerations raised by this dynamic among investors, MMFs, and short-term funding markets are multi-faceted and significant. The orderly functioning of short-term funding markets is essential to the performance of broader financial markets and our economy more generally. It is the role of financial regulators to identify and address market activities that have the potential to impair that orderly functioning. Crafters of public policy and financial regulation also must recognize that the broad availability of short-term funding is critical to short-term funding markets and, for many decades, prime and tax-exempt MMFs have been an important source of demand in these markets although their market share has decreased and assets shifted toward government MMFs in the past decade. In addition, the participation of retail investors in MMFs raises considerations of fairness and consumer confidence, particularly in times of unanticipated stress, that can affect regulatory and public policy responses.
These dynamics and policy considerations were brought into stark relief in March 2020. While government MMFs saw significant inflows during this time, the prime and tax-exempt MMF sectors faced significant outflows and increasingly illiquid markets for the funds' assets. As a result, prime and tax-exempt MMFs experienced, and began to contribute to, general stress in short-term funding markets in March 2020. For example, as pressures on prime and tax-exempt MMFs worsened, two MMF sponsors intervened to provide support to their funds. It did not appear that these funds had idiosyncratic holdings or were otherwise distinct from similar funds and, accordingly, it was reasonable to conclude that other MMFs could need similar support in the near term. These events occurred despite multiple reform efforts over the past decade to make MMFs more resilient to credit and liquidity stresses and, as a result, less susceptible to redemption-driven runs. When the Federal Reserve quickly took action in mid-March by establishing, with Treasury approval, the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (“MMLF”) and other facilities to support short-term funding markets generally and MMFs specifically, prime and tax-exempt MMF outflows subsided and short-term funding market conditions improved.
Prime and tax-exempt MMFs have been supported by official sector intervention twice over the past twelve years. In September 2008, there was a run on certain types of MMFs after the failure of Lehman Brothers caused a large prime MMF that held Lehman Brothers short-term instruments to sustain losses and “break the buck.”
Because prime and tax-exempt MMFs again have shown structural vulnerabilities that can create or transmit stress in short-term funding markets, it is incumbent upon financial regulators to examine the events of March 2020 closely, and in particular the role, operation, and regulatory framework for these MMFs, with a view toward potential improvements. In addition, absent regulatory reform or other action that alters market expectations, these prior official sector interventions may have the consequence of solidifying the perception among investors, fund sponsors, and other market participants that similar support will be provided in future periods of stress.
With that history and context, this report by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets (“PWG”) begins the important process of review and assessment.
MMFs are a type of mutual fund registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and regulated under rule 2a-7 of the Act. MMFs offer a combination of limited principal volatility, liquidity, and payment of short-term market returns, which make them a popular cash management vehicle for both retail and institutional investors. These funds also serve as an important source of short-term financing for businesses and financial institutions, as well as federal, state, and local governments.
Overall, MMFs tend to invest in short-term, high-quality debt instruments that typically are held to maturity and
Another significant difference among different types of MMFs is how they price the purchase and redemption of their shares. All government MMFs, as well as retail prime and retail tax-exempt MMFs, are permitted to price their shares at a stable net asset value (“NAV”) per share (typically $1.00) without regard to small variations in the value of the assets in their portfolios. These MMFs must periodically compare their stable NAV per share to the market-based value per share of their portfolios (or “market-based price”). If the deviation between these two values exceeds one-half of one percent (50 basis points), the fund's board must consider what action, if any, to take, including whether to adjust the fund's share price. If the repricing is below the fund's $1.00 share price, the event is commonly called “breaking the buck.” In light of the importance investors place on a stable $1.00 share price, such an action can lead to a loss of confidence in the fund and, if it is expected to extend beyond one fund, could lead to a loss of confidence in all similar funds. As discussed below, following the SEC's 2014 reforms, institutional prime and institutional tax-exempt MMFs are required to price their shares using a floating NAV, which reflects the market value of the fund's investments and any changes in that value, thus reducing the risk of an adverse signaling effect from “breaking the buck.”
As investors commonly use MMFs for principal preservation and as a cash management tool, many MMF investors may have a low tolerance for losses and liquidity limitations. However, MMFs offer shareholder redemptions on at least a daily basis (and in some cases at a stable NAV), even though a potentially significant portion of portfolio assets may not be converted into cash in that timeframe without a reduction in value. When the MMF does have to sell portfolio assets at a discount, the fund's remaining shareholders generally bear those losses. These factors can lead to greater redemptions if investors believe they will be better off by redeeming earlier than other investors—a so-called “first mover” advantage—when there is a perception that the fund may suffer a loss in value or liquidity. Historically, amid periods of stress for MMFs, institutional investors, who may have large holdings and the resources to monitor risks carefully, have redeemed shares more rapidly and extensively than retail investors.
The SEC has implemented a number of reforms over the past decade aimed at making MMFs more resilient to credit and liquidity stresses and addressing structural vulnerabilities in MMFs that were evident in the 2008 financial crisis, particularly the substantial reforms the SEC adopted in 2010 and 2014.
Daily liquid assets are: Cash; direct obligations of the U.S. government; certain securities that will mature (or be payable through a demand feature) within one business day; or amounts unconditionally due within one business day from pending portfolio security sales.
Weekly liquid assets are: Cash; direct obligations of the U.S. government; agency discount notes with remaining maturities of 60 days or less; certain securities that will mature (or be payable through a demand feature) within five business days; or amounts unconditionally due within five business days from pending security sales.
The SEC's subsequent 2014 reforms focused on the structural vulnerabilities that make MMFs susceptible to runs and provided tools intended to slow runs should they occur.
In addition, to provide tools to slow an investor run should it occur, the 2014 reforms provided new fee and gate tools for all prime and tax-exempt MMFs, including retail funds.
Further, the 2014 amendments enhanced transparency for MMF investors and provided information about important MMF events more uniformly and efficiently. For instance, the amendments required MMFs to promptly report certain significant events in filings with the SEC, including the imposition or removal of fees or gates, portfolio security defaults, the use of sponsor support, and a fall in a retail or government MMF's market-based price per share below $0.9975. The 2014 reforms also generally required website disclosure of these events, as well as daily website disclosure of a fund's DLA, WLA, market-based NAV, and net flows. In addition, the reforms addressed MMF diversification and valuation practices.
Since 2008, the composition of the MMF sector has changed substantially, and the industry continued to evolve through 2020. Chart 1 provides information about changes in net assets by type of MMF, while Chart 2 provides more detail about subcategories of prime and tax-exempt MMFs (
The assets of
The drop in prime retail MMF assets in September 2020 is the result of a large prime retail MMF converting to a government MMF.
The net assets of prime MMFs (the red line in Chart 1) contracted substantially in the year leading up to the October 2016 deadline for implementing the 2014 MMF reforms and were $550 billion in December 2016. By February 2020, these funds' assets had recovered to $1.1 trillion, but their assets fell $125 billion on net in March. As of September 2020, prime MMFs accounted for around 20 percent of industry net assets.
Net assets in tax-exempt MMFs (the dashed green line in Chart 1) have also declined since 2008, when these funds had net assets exceeding $500 billion. Tax-exempt funds' assets fell $120 billion in the year before October 2016 and were about $135 billion at the end of 2016. By February 2020, tax-exempt fund assets were about $140 billion, and they declined $9 billion in March 2020. The vast majority of tax-exempt MMF net assets are in retail funds (see Chart 2). Tax-exempt MMFs represent under three percent of total industry net assets as of September 2020.
Amid escalating concerns about the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, market participants sought to rapidly shift their holdings toward cash and short-term government securities. This rapid shift in asset allocation preferences placed stress on various components of short-term funding markets, including prime and tax-exempt MMFs, the repo markets, the CP market, and short-term municipal securities markets (including the market for variable-rate demand notes (“VRDNs”)). As discussed in more detail below, pressures on prime and tax-exempt MMFs again revealed structural vulnerabilities in MMFs that led to increased redemptions and, in turn, began to contribute to and increase the general stress in short-term funding markets.
Pricing and liquidity concerns at MMFs were driven by, and began to contribute to, these market stresses. Widening spreads in short-term funding markets put downward pressure on the prices of assets in prime MMFs' portfolios, and redemptions from MMFs likely contributed to stress in these markets, as prime funds reduced their CP holdings disproportionately compared to other holders. At the end of February, prime MMFs offered to the public owned about 19 percent of outstanding CP.
Some market participants have suggested that another contributing factor to stress in CP markets was that dealers in CP markets (as well as issuing dealers and banks) were experiencing their own liquidity pressures and limits on their willingness to intermediate in money markets.
The redemption stresses on tax-exempt MMFs likely contributed to worsening conditions in short-term municipal debt markets. The SIFMA 7-day municipal swap index yield, a benchmark weekly rate in these markets, shot up 392 basis points on
As part of the general deterioration in short-term funding market conditions, prime and tax-exempt MMFs experienced heavy redemptions beginning in the second week of March 2020. Outflows increased quickly, peaking on March 17 for prime funds (the day the Federal Reserve announced the CPFF) and on March 23 for tax-exempt funds (one business day after the Federal Reserve's MMLF was expanded to include tax-exempt securities).
A sizable portion of the institutional prime fund sector's assets are in funds that are not offered to the public.
Preliminary research indicates that prime fund outflows accelerated as WLAs declined, suggesting that the potential imposition of a fee or gate when a fund's WLA drops below 30 percent encouraged institutional investors to redeem before that threshold was crossed.
On March 18, 2020, the Federal Reserve, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, authorized the MMLF, which began to operate on March 23.
Outflows from prime MMFs abated fairly quickly after the Federal Reserve's announcement of programs and other actions to support short-term funding markets and the flow of credit to households and businesses more generally, including its initial announcement of the MMLF on March 18.
While stress affected a variety of money market instruments and investment vehicles, the broad policy responses from the Federal Reserve, including the availability of secondary market liquidity for MMFs through the MMLF, appeared to have had the intended broad calming effect on short-term funding markets. For instance, although European dollar-denominated MMFs are not eligible to participate in the MMLF, outflows from these funds abated shortly after the MMLF began operations. The resulting stability in short-term funding markets, along with the fiscal stimulus provided by the CARES Act and the expectation of continued accommodative monetary policy, facilitated stability in the capital markets more generally.
While many of the post-2008 MMF reforms added stability to MMFs, the events of March 2020 show that more work is needed to reduce the risk that
These potential policy measures differ in terms of the scope and breadth of regulatory changes they would require. For example, many of the potential reforms would apply only to prime and tax-exempt MMFs, while reforms such as swing pricing could apply to mutual funds more generally. Moreover, some potential reforms would involve targeted amendments to SEC rules, which relevant MMFs could likely implement fairly quickly, while others would involve longer-term structural changes or may require coordinated action by multiple agencies. The different measures are not necessarily mutually exclusive, nor are they equally effective at mitigating the vulnerabilities of prime and tax-exempt MMFs. Policy makers could combine certain measures within a single set of reforms. Some policy measures listed below have been raised for consideration previously, including in the PWG's October 2010 report on MMF reform options and the FSOC's 2012 proposed recommendations on MMF reform, and warrant renewed consideration in light of recent MMF stresses.
This report focuses on reform measures for MMFs only. It is important to recognize MMFs' role in the market events in March 2020 and to examine measures that would address concerns and structural vulnerabilities specific to MMFs. Although they are beyond the scope of this report, and as discussed generally above, there were other stresses in short-term funding markets in March 2020 that may have contributed to the pressure on MMFs.
As discussed in more detail below, the potential policy measures for prime and tax-exempt MMFs explored in this report are:
• Removal of Tie between MMF Liquidity and Fee and Gate Thresholds;
• Reform of Conditions for Imposing Redemption Gates;
• Minimum Balance at Risk (“MBR”);
• Money Market Fund Liquidity Management Changes;
• Countercyclical Weekly Liquid Asset Requirements;
• Floating NAVs for All Prime and Tax-Exempt Money Market Funds;
• Swing Pricing Requirement;
• Capital Buffer Requirements;
• Require Liquidity Exchange Bank (“LEB”) Membership; and
• New Requirements Governing Sponsor Support.
• First, would they effectively address the MMF structural vulnerabilities that contributed to stress in short-term funding markets?
• Second, would they improve the resilience and functioning of short-term funding markets?
• Third, would they reduce the likelihood that official sector interventions and taxpayer support will be needed to halt future MMF runs or address stresses in short-term funding markets more generally?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(b)
At the same time, some of the reform options would likely diminish the size of prime and tax-exempt MMFs, which would also affect the functioning of short-term funding markets. A shrinkage of MMFs could reduce the supply of short-term funding for financial institutions, businesses, and state and local governments. Making prime and tax-exempt MMFs less desirable as cash-management vehicles also could cause investors to move to less regulated and less transparent mutualized cash-management vehicles that are also susceptible to runs that cause stress in short-term funding markets.
A reduction in the size of prime and tax-exempt MMFs may not necessarily be inappropriate if, for example, the growth of these funds has reflected in part the effects of implicit taxpayer subsidies and other externalities (that is, broader economic costs of runs that are not borne by investors or the funds). In addition, if these MMFs remain run prone, a reduction in the size of the industry could mitigate the effects of future runs from these funds on short-term funding markets.
The aftermath of the 2014 MMF reforms provides a precedent for the consequences of a substantial reduction in the size of prime and tax-exempt funds, although a future experience could differ. In the year before the October 2016 implementation deadline for those reforms, aggregate prime MMF assets shrank by $1.2 trillion (69 percent) and tax-exempt MMF assets declined about $120 billion (47 percent). Nonetheless, to the extent that spreads for instruments held by these MMFs were affected, they generally widened only temporarily, and investor migration to other mutualized cash-management vehicles was largely limited to shifts to government MMFs. (Over the next three years, prime MMFs regained about half of the 2015-2016 decline.)
These considerations are important, because some of the reform options could reduce the size of the prime and tax-exempt fund sectors by:
•
•
(c)
Several specific policy options are described below, along with a high-level analysis of the potential benefits and drawbacks of each option.
Liquidity fees and redemption gates are intended to give MMF boards tools to stem heavy redemptions by imposing a fee to reduce shareholders' incentives to redeem or by stopping redemptions altogether for a period of time. Currently, MMF boards have discretion to impose fees or gates when WLAs fall below 30 percent of total assets and generally must impose a fee of 1 percent if WLAs fall below 10 percent, unless the board determines that such a fee would not be in the best interest of the fund or that a lower or higher (up to 2 percent) liquidity fee is in the best interests of the fund.
Definitive thresholds for permissible imposition of liquidity fees and redemption gates may have the unintended effect of triggering preemptive investor redemptions as funds approach the relevant thresholds. Some preliminary research suggests that redemptions accelerated in March 2020 from funds with declining WLAs.
• Removing the tie between the WLA thresholds and funds' ability to impose gates and fees would reduce the salience of these thresholds and could diminish the incentive for preemptive runs.
• This may improve the usability of WLA buffers by making MMFs more comfortable in deploying their liquid assets in times of stress.
Potential drawbacks, limitations, and challenges:
• While this option would remove a focal point that may trigger runs, it would do little otherwise to mitigate run incentives.
• If MMFs maintain fewer liquid assets (by holding WLA levels closer to 30 percent) as a result of this change, the funds may be less equipped to manage significant redemptions without engaging in fire sales.
• Permitting funds to impose fees or gates without reference to a specific threshold may cause broader contagion if investors fear the imposition of fees or gates in other funds that otherwise would have been seen as safe.
Reforming rules regarding redemption gates to reduce the likelihood that gates may be imposed could diminish investors' incentives to engage in preemptive runs. For example, funds could be required to obtain permission from the SEC or notify the SEC prior to imposing gates. Alternatively, fund boards could be required to consider liquidity fees before gates, making it less likely that gates would be imposed. Another option could be to lower the WLA threshold at which gates could be imposed to, for example, 10 percent.
Gate rules also could be reformed to make gates “soft” or “partial.” With soft gates, for example, if redemptions on a particular day exceed a certain amount, a fund could reduce each investor's redemption pro rata to bring total redemptions below that amount, with remaining redemption amounts deferred to the next business day (and continuing daily deferrals until all redemption requests are satisfied). This affords investors at least some liquidity, in contrast to the complete curtailment of liquidity when a fund suspends all redemptions.
• Reforming the rules around gates might reduce concerns that gates will be imposed immediately upon a breach of the 30 percent WLA requirement and reduce the salience of that threshold, particularly if investors are more concerned about gates than fees.
• Gates could still be imposed, but only in very dire conditions when runs on funds are likely anyway.
• This may improve the usability of WLA buffers by making MMFs more comfortable in deploying their liquid assets in times of stress.
• A “soft” or “partial” gate could reduce disruptions caused by the imposition of a gate by allowing shareholders to redeem a portion of shares as normal, with a portion held for a limited time to help the fund slow the rate of redemptions during stress periods without engaging in fire sales.
• If thresholds remain, they could still be focal points for runs on MMFs.
• While this option could reduce the salience of a threshold that may trigger runs, it would do little otherwise to mitigate run incentives.
• Reducing the likelihood that a gate may be imposed could reduce the potential utility of gates as a tool to slow investor redemptions.
• Providing the SEC a role in granting permission for imposition of gates may result in less timely action than the current framework involving the MMF's board, particularly if multiple MMFs seek SEC permission in a short period of time, which could allow runs to continue or accelerate. Absent a threshold, it could be challenging to develop objective criteria in advance for quickly approving or denying such requests in a consistent and appropriate manner amid a fast-moving crisis.
• If MMFs maintain fewer liquid assets (by holding WLA levels closer to 30 percent) as a result of this change, the funds may be less equipped to manage significant redemptions without engaging in fire sales.
• Like other gates, a “soft” (or “partial”) gate may spur preemptive runs, but a soft gate may be less effective at slowing runs than a full gate, as investors can continue to redeem even after a soft gate has been imposed.
• “Soft” or “partial” gates could introduce accounting and administrative complexities.
An MBR is a portion of each shareholder's recent balances in a MMF that would be available for redemption only with a time delay to ensure that redeeming investors still remain partially invested in the fund over a certain time period. As such, even if the investor redeems all of her available shares, she would still share in any losses incurred by the fund during that timeframe. A “strong form” of MBR would also put a portion of redeeming investors' MBRs first in line to absorb any losses, which creates a disincentive to redeem. The size of the MBR would be a specified fraction of the shareholder's maximum recent balance (less an exempted amount). An MBR mechanism could be used in a floating NAV fund to allocate losses only under certain rare circumstances, such as when the fund suffers a large drop in NAV or is closed.
• A properly calibrated “strong” MBR could reduce the vulnerability of MMFs to runs.
• A strong MBR can internalize the liquidity costs of investors' redemptions and thus reduce or eliminate the first-mover advantage for redeeming investors. It would do so by subordinating a portion of their shares to put them at greater risk if the fund suffers a loss. This can weigh against incentives to redeem in a stress event, so it can be particularly helpful as liquidity costs rise.
• The disincentive to redeem created by an MBR strengthens mechanically as stresses increase and put subordinated shares at greater risk. Hence, the MBR does not create a threshold effect that might spur redemptions.
• Under a strong form of MBR, the subordinated shares of redeeming investors provide extra loss absorption to protect the investments of non-redeeming investors.
• An MBR could provide more transparency to shareholders regarding their risk, as shareholders' account information could include their balances and the size of their MBRs.
• The MBR could present implementation and administration challenges. For example, MMFs, intermediaries, and service providers would need to update systems to: (1) Compute the MBR on an ongoing basis for each shareholder account and update the allocation of unrestricted, holdback, or subordinated holdback shares for each account to reflect any additional subscriptions or redemptions and the passage of time; and (2) prevent a shareholder from redeeming holdback or subordinated holdback shares in transaction processing systems.
• An MBR mechanism may have different and unequal effects on investors in stable NAV and floating NAV MMFs. During the holdback period, investors in a stable NAV MMF would only experience losses if the fund breaks the buck, but investors in a floating NAV MMF are always exposed to changes in the fund's NAV and would continue to be exposed to such risk for any shares held back.
• The MBR is an unfamiliar concept in the fund industry that may result in investor discomfort or confusion, particularly when it is first introduced.
• Calibrating the appropriate size for an MBR could be a challenge; an MBR that is too small may not create sufficient disincentives to redeem in stress events, but one that is too large would unnecessarily reduce the liquidity of the fund's shares.
MMFs currently are subject to daily and weekly liquid asset requirements and must disclose the amount of daily and weekly liquid assets each day on the fund's website. Changes to liquidity management requirements could include a new category of liquidity requirements. For example, instead of focusing solely on daily and weekly liquid assets, creating an additional category for assets with slightly longer maturities (
As another alternative, an additional threshold, such as a WLA threshold of 40 percent, could be set to augment current liquidity buffers. If a fund's WLAs fell below this threshold, penalties such as requiring the escrow of fund management fees until the level of WLA is restored could be imposed on fund managers, rather than investors. This effectively would require funds to maintain a larger amount of WLAs than currently required.
• An additional tier of liquidity may make MMFs more resilient to significant redemptions by ensuring they maintain assets that will soon become WLAs. Additional liquidity requirements also
• Rules to penalize fund managers first for having inadequate portfolio liquidity have the potential to diminish the salience of WLA thresholds to investors by ensuring that initial consequences for crossing the thresholds are not imposed directly on investors.
• Requiring funds to purchase additional near-term liquid assets or maintain larger WLAs to avoid penalties might encourage funds to take greater risks in the less liquid parts of their portfolios, particularly in a low interest rate environment, absent other measures to constrain this behavior.
• Imposing the escrow of fees or other penalties on fund managers if WLAs do not meet a new higher minimum requirement could further diminish the usability of WLA buffers by making MMFs less comfortable in deploying their liquid assets in times of stress.
• Further increases in liquid asset requirements may provide funds only a little extra time during a run, as institutional prime fund outflows exceeded 5 percent of assets per day at the height of the run in March 2020.
• Additional liquid asset requirements for MMFs could heighten roll-over risks for issuers of short-term debt that may see more demand for issuance in shorter tenors. In addition, to the extent that new investors would replace MMFs in the tenors outside the near-term liquidity requirements, transparency regarding the nature of these investors may be lower.
• It is not clear whether the required escrow of fees or other penalties could be imposed on fund managers in a way that would not also affect MMF investors (
• Funds that purchase additional near-term liquid assets or maintain larger WLAs to avoid penalties may generate lower yield compared to similar investment products, which may reduce investor demand for such funds. As noted above, a reduction in the size of the prime and tax-exempt MMF sectors could affect the resilience and functioning of short-term funding markets in a variety of ways.
During the market stress in March 2020, prime and tax-exempt MMFs that were close to the 30 percent WLA threshold may have avoided using their liquid assets to meet redemptions. MMFs' incentives to maintain WLAs well above the 30 percent minimum, even in the face of significant outflows, may include the desires to avoid: (1) Prohibitions on purchasing assets that are not WLAs; (2) raising investor concerns about the potential imposition of fees or gates; and (3) potential scrutiny resulting from public disclosure of low WLA amounts. A countercyclical WLA requirement could reduce some or all of these concerns. Under this approach, minimum WLA requirements could automatically decline in certain circumstances, such as when net redemptions are large or when the SEC provides temporary relief from WLA requirements. Any thresholds linked to a fund's minimum WLA requirements (
• A countercyclical WLA requirement could reduce the salience of the 30 percent WLA threshold and may lessen redemption pressures when a fund is near that threshold.
• This may improve the usability of WLA buffers by making MMFs more comfortable in deploying their liquid assets in times of stress.
• Funds that reduce WLAs in stress events would be less equipped to manage additional redemptions without engaging in fire sales.
• Even if the WLA threshold is reduced, threshold effects may still motivate investors to redeem. In addition, investors may still prefer to redeem from funds that are approaching or breaching the standard 30 percent threshold, and reduced WLA minimums may in fact call attention to potential stress and prompt greater investor outflows.
• The benefits of this change for funds' use of liquid assets may be modest, as current rules do not preclude funds from using WLAs to meet redemptions or prohibit funds from allowing their WLAs to fall below 30 percent.
• Appropriately calibrating a countercyclical WLA requirement, including determining whether it would be an automatic mechanism or one that the SEC has to adjust in a crisis, could be challenging.
Retail prime MMFs and retail tax-exempt MMFs currently can use a rounded NAV and value portfolio assets at their amortized cost, which permits the funds to sell and redeem shares at a stable share price (
• The floating NAV eliminates the salience of a MMF's NAV dropping more than 0.5 percent ($0.995). Unlike stable NAV funds, MMFs with floating NAVs cannot “break the buck.”
• Stable NAVs can create an incentive to redeem when MMF portfolios assets lose value because redeeming investors can receive more for their shares than they are worth, while losses are concentrated among non-redeeming investors. In contrast, a floating NAV mitigates that incentive to redeem as losses are spread across all shareholders on a
• Floating NAVs make portfolio risks more transparent by making fluctuations in share values readily observable, which could better align investors' expectations with the risks of portfolio holdings.
• A floating NAV requirement would not affect institutional MMFs, which have historically been the most vulnerable to runs but already have floating NAVs.
• Institutional prime MMFs with floating NAVs still experienced runs in March; floating NAVs do not prevent runs.
• Floating NAVs could result in a reduction in the size of retail prime and retail tax-exempt MMF sectors by making retail MMF shares less cash-like, which could reduce investor demand. As noted above, a reduction in the size of the prime and tax-exempt MMF sectors could affect the resilience and functioning of short-term funding markets in a variety of ways.
Under current rules, MMF investors redeeming their shares in a prime or tax-exempt fund typically do not incur the costs associated with this redemption activity. Instead, these costs are largely borne by other investors in the fund, and this contributes to a first-mover advantage for those who redeem quickly in a crisis. Swing pricing effectively allows a fund to impose the costs stemming from redemptions directly on redeeming investors by adjusting the fund's NAV downward when net redemptions exceed a threshold.
• A properly calibrated swing pricing mechanism could reduce the vulnerability of MMFs to runs.
• Swing pricing can internalize the liquidity costs of investors' redemptions and thus reduce or eliminate the first-mover advantage for redeeming investors. By making redemptions costly, swing pricing can weigh against incentives to redeem in a stress event, so it can be particularly helpful as liquidity costs rise. Swing pricing also benefits investors who do not redeem by reducing dilution to the value of a fund's shares and insulating these investors from the effects of others' redemption activity.
• Swing pricing can improve long-run fund performance by reducing dilution.
• If swing pricing is available (and used occasionally) in “normal” times, its use can help investors understand that they bear liquidity risks in a MMF. Moreover, regular deployment of swing pricing would make its use in stress events less unsettling for investors.
• Eligible U.S. mutual funds have yet to implement swing pricing, largely because implementation would require substantial reconfiguration of current distribution and order-processing practices. MMFs could face similar challenges.
• Unlike other mutual funds, some MMFs strike their NAVs more than once per day and allow intraday purchases and redemptions for any orders received prior to a given NAV strike. The potential management of swing pricing considerations multiple times per day could be particularly challenging in times of market stress.
• It may be challenging to design and calibrate a swing pricing mechanism that can effectively internalize liquidity costs for redeeming investors, especially during stress events.
Capital (or “NAV”) buffers, which could be structured in a variety of ways, can provide dedicated resources within or alongside a fund to absorb losses and can serve to absorb fluctuations in the value of a fund's portfolio, reducing the cost to taxpayers in case of a run.
• A capital buffer adds ex ante loss-absorption capacity to a MMF that would mitigate MMF shareholders' risk of losses and their incentives to redeem in a stress event.
• A buffer would mitigate the MMF industry's reliance on discretionary, ex post sponsor support by assuring that MMFs already have resources in place to absorb losses.
• Owners of capital will have incentives to mitigate risk-taking by the fund. For example, if capital is provided by the fund's sponsor, the sponsor will have an explicit incentive to manage portfolio risks to preserve the capital.
• A capital buffer financed from unaffiliated investors could be complex to administer.
• Sizable capital buffers are costly to finance, and building adequate capital buffers from MMF income could take substantial time, particularly in a low interest rate environment, and could disadvantage current MMF investors for the benefit of future MMF investors.
• Calibrating the appropriate size for a capital buffer could be a challenge; MMFs would continue to be vulnerable if the buffer is too small, but one that is too large would be unnecessarily costly.
• A capital requirement could increase MMF industry concentration because provision of initial capital would be a substantial burden for some asset managers and could cause them to exit the industry. In addition, such a requirement may favor bank-sponsored funds.
• The costs of financing a capital buffer would be borne by MMF sponsors and investors, and these costs could result in a reduction in the size of the prime and tax-exempt MMF sectors. As noted above, a reduction in the size of these MMFs could affect the resilience and functioning of short-term funding markets in a variety of ways.
To provide a liquidity backstop during periods of market stress, prime and tax-exempt MMFs could be required to be members of a private liquidity exchange bank. The LEB would be a chartered bank. Under one LEB proposal, MMF members and their sponsors would capitalize the LEB through initial contributions and ongoing commitment fees. During times of market stress, the LEB would purchase eligible assets from MMFs that need cash, up to a maximum amount per fund. The LEB would not be intended to provide credit support.
• The existence of a liquidity backstop provided by an LEB could diminish investors' incentives to run.
• An LEB would commit private resources, including bank capital, ex ante to provide liquidity to MMFs. This
• Chartered banks generally have access to Federal Reserve liquidity through the discount window, although the duration and extent of access is not guaranteed. To the extent that the LEB has access to the discount window, that access may further mitigate liquidity pressures on MMFs and reduce the likelihood of fire sales.
• Pooling liquidity resources for MMFs may offer efficiency gains. An LEB would provide liquidity to MMFs that need it, rather than requiring each MMF to hold liquidity separately.
• Access to the LEB backstop during times of market stress, without further consideration of risk management measures, could have moral hazard effects that motivate some funds to take greater risks in the less-liquid parts of their portfolios.
• The LEB, which would not provide traditional banking services, is not intended to operate as a commercial bank, and commercial banks are not organized to buy assets from entities facing financial difficulties. As such, it is unclear whether such an entity would be able to obtain a banking charter.
• Access to the discount window by the LEB is not guaranteed, particularly in the size and term that may be needed to provide material liquidity support to MMFs under stress.
• To the extent that liquidity provided by the Federal Reserve exceeds what is provided to a typical commercial bank, the LEB would not be significantly different from other types of historical official sector support.
• As a bank, the LEB would be subject to supervision and regulation, including restrictions on transactions with affiliate funds.
• The LEB would need significant capital to both be in a position to provide meaningful liquidity for MMFs in stress events and be seen as a credible liquidity backstop. Building adequate capacity from MMF income could take several years, particularly in a low interest rate environment. Moreover, the need to comply with applicable leverage-based capital requirements on a continuous basis—even during periods of peak usage under stress—could render the LEB's lending capacity insufficiently robust in extremis.
• News that an LEB is running out of capacity could accelerate runs.
• Requiring fund sponsors to provide initial capital for an LEB would likely favor large and bank-affiliated sponsors and could cause some others to exit the industry, thus increasing industry concentration.
• Administering an LEB may raise complex governance and fairness concerns, particularly in times of stress.
• Requiring membership in an LEB likely would impose a cost on sponsors and reduce yields for investors, both of which could result in a reduction in the size of the prime and tax-exempt MMF sectors. As noted above, a reduction in the size of these MMFs could affect the resilience and functioning of short-term funding markets in a variety of ways.
In times of market stress, sponsor support has been a tool for stabilizing MMF share prices and providing liquidity. Support of funds was relatively common during the 2008 financial crisis as a number of MMF sponsors purchased large amounts of portfolio securities from their MMFs or provided capital support to their MMFs.
A regulatory framework governing sponsor support could clarify who bears MMF risks by establishing when a sponsor would be required to provide support.
• Explicit sponsor support, similar to a capital buffer, would commit private resources ex ante to absorb losses, mitigate risks to MMF shareholders, and reduce their incentives to redeem in a stress event.
• Similar to a capital buffer financed by MMF sponsors, explicit sponsor support could strengthen sponsors' incentives to reduce portfolio risks.
• Making sponsor support for MMFs explicit would favor bank-sponsored funds and would likely increase MMF industry concentration.
• Making support explicit would require new official sector oversight to ensure that sponsors have resources to provide support.
• Formalizing sponsor support would impose an expected cost on sponsors and likely would cause them to charge higher fees to investors, which could lead to a reduction in the size of the prime and tax-exempt MMF sectors. At the same time, explicit support could boost demand for these funds by making them less risky. As noted above, changes in the size of these MMFs could affect the resilience and functioning of short-term funding markets in a variety of ways.
On December 21, 2020, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
DTC proposes to amend its Corporate Actions Distributions Service Guide (“Distributions Guide”)
Interim accounting is an important part of the entitlements and allocations process for distributions for DTC. The interim period (also referred to in the Distributions Guide as the due bill period) is the period during which a settling trade has due bills attached to it. A due bill is an indication of a seller's obligation to deliver a pending distribution (
Normally, the registered holder of a security on the close of business on the record date is entitled to the distribution. There are times, however, when that is not the case. Such times generally fall into two categories. First, for equity issues, there are times when the listed exchange will declare an ex-date that is not one business day prior to the record date (
With DTC's interim accounting process, during a due bill period, DTC tracks all settled activity, where the receiver (typically a buyer) is entitled to a distribution, and adjusts Participants' record-date positions, crediting the receiver and debiting the deliverer (typically a seller) the distribution amount.
DTC proposes to amend the Distributions Guide to provide greater clarity and transparency regarding the foregoing description of the interim accounting process.
In certain scenarios, listed exchanges might not announce an ex-date that is on or after the date the corresponding security is being delisted. In such instances, if the listed exchange does not declare an ex-date, but instead provides direction that trades in a particular security up to a specified date include the distribution, then DTC captures interim accounting based on the exchange's direction.
Occasionally, there is an unscheduled closing of one or more stock exchanges (due to,
Currently, when an exchange moves ex-dates due to unscheduled closing of the exchange, DTC continues to apply the interim accounting process described above.
DTC states that its UTW service is designed to help ensure that the appropriate non-resident alien withholding tax is applied to U.S.-sourced income paid to DTC's direct non-U.S. Participants.
The Distributions Guide currently provides that the UTW service is available to non-U.S. Participants, including subaccounts of U.S. Participants, and that users of the UTW service must enter into a Withholding Agent Agreement.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21) under the Act
The foregoing proposed changes would improve the Distributions Guide by clarifying DTC's interim accounting processes, as well as the application and requirements of the UTW service. As a result, the proposed changes would help better inform DTC's Participants regarding those matters. Moreover, as described above, the proposed change to no longer apply interim accounting when there is an unscheduled closure of an exchange would provide efficiencies to Participants by obviating the need for them to make unnecessary interim accounting adjustments.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is designed to enhance DTC's efficiency and effectiveness in meeting the requirements of its Participants and the
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 29, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rules at Options 1, Section 1, “Applicability, Definitions and References”; Options 2, Section 4, “Obligations of Market Makers”; Options 2, Section 6, “Market Maker Orders”; Options 3, Section 6, “Firm Quotations”; Options 3, Section 7, “Types of Orders and Order and Quote Protocols”; Options 3, Section 10, “Electronic Execution Priority and Processing in the System”; Options 3, Section 13, “Price Improvement XL (“PIXL”)”; Options 3, Section 15, “Simple Order Risk Protections”; Options 3, Section 23, “Data Feeds and Trade Information”; Options 5, Section 4, “Order Routing”; Options 8, Section 2, “Definitions”; and Options 8, Section 32, “Types of Floor-Based (Non-System) Orders”.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rules at Options 1, Section 1, “Applicability, Definitions and References”; Options 2, Section 4, “Obligations of Market Makers”; Options 2, Section 6, “Market Maker Orders”; Options 3, Section 6, “Firm Quotations”; Options 3, Section 7, “Types of Orders and Order and Quote Protocols”; Options 3, Section 10, “Electronic Execution Priority and Processing in the System”; Options 3, Section 13, “Price Improvement XL (“PIXL”)”; Options 3, Section 15, “Simple Order Risk Protections”; Options 3, Section 23, “Data Feeds and Trade Information”; Options 5, Section 4, “Order Routing”; Options 8, Section 2, “Definitions”; and Options 8, Section 32, “Types of Floor-Based (Non-System) Orders”. Each change is described below.
The Exchange proposes to update the cross reference within Options 1, Section 1(b)(46) to Options 1, Section 1(b)(45) and make other non-substantive grammatical amendments within Options 1, Section 1.
The Exchange proposes to add a title to Options 2, Section 4(c)(1) to make clear that this section applies intra-day. The Exchange proposes to add the title, “Intra-Day Bid/Ask Differentials (Quote Spread Parameters).”
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to remove the phrase, “or its decimal equivalent rounded down to the nearest minimum increment” within Options 2, Section 4(c)(1). This is a non-substantive amendment because the bid/ask differentials may be as wide as the spread between the national best bid and offer in the underlying security, if rounding up it would cause the spread to be wider than the underlying spread, so rounding is superfluous.
The Exchange previously filed a rule change
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 6 to re-number and re-letter the rule to conform to Phlx's rule structure, update rule citations, and add spacing where necessary.
The Exchange also proposes to amend current Options 3, Section 6(a)(ii)(B)(2)(g)(iv)(A)(4), which provides,
(A) If the Best Price is the Exchange's next available price . . .
The Exchange proposes to amend the sentence which provides,
If the Best Price is the Exchange's next available price . . . and is also equal to both the ABBO price and the Acceptable Trade Range price, any remainder order volume from the execution on the Exchange will be routed away, and if after such routing, there still remain unexecuted contracts, the remainder will be posted on the Phlx at the Acceptable Trade Range price for a period not to exceed ten seconds, and then cancelled after this time has elapsed, unless the member that submitted the original order has instructed the Exchange in writing to re-enter the remaining size, in which case the remaining size will be automatically submitted as a new order.
This statement does not represent the current function of the System. The Exchange proposes to amend the rule text to properly represent system functionality. Today, in this scenario, if the Exchange's next available price is the ABBO price (which equates to the Acceptable Trade Range price) after the remaining order has routed away and executed with quotes at the away exchange and the unexecuted contracts are returned to the Exchange, the incoming order may post at its original limit price, with a new timestamp and would be subject to certain entry checks. The Exchange proposes to amend the sentence to correctly provide,
If the Best Price is the Exchange's next available price . . . and is also equal to both the ABBO price and the Acceptable Trade Range price, any remainder order volume from the execution on the Exchange will be routed away, and if after such routing, there still remain unexecuted contracts, the unexecuted contracts would post to the Order Book at their Limit Order price, with a new timestamp, subject to order entry price checks.
The order entry checks are applied for new orders when they post to the Order Book as provided for in Phlx Options 3, Section 5(a)(4). The Exchange filed prior rule changes
The final sentence of Options 3, Section 6(a)(ii)(B)(2)(g)(iv)(A)(4),
The Exchange proposes to amend current Options 3, Section 6(a)(ii)(B)(4)(a), which states, “If there are no offers both on the Exchange and on away markets in the affected series, Market Orders to buy in the affected series will be cancelled immediately, and an electronic report of such cancellation will be transmitted to the sender.” The Exchange proposes to replace “cancelled immediately” with the term “rejected” to conform the rule text to conform to other uses of the word rejected in the Rulebook. The System would reject and not accept the order in this case.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .02 to Options 3, Section 6 which states, “In the event that an SQT, RSQT, and/or Lead Market Maker's electronically submitted quotations interact with the electronically submitted quotations of other SQTs, RSQTs and/or the Lead Market Maker, resulting in the dissemination of a “locked” quotation (
Similar to the changes proposed within Options 2, Section 6, the Exchange proposes to replace the term “Registered Options Traders” or “ROTs” with “Market Makers” and replace “Specialists” with “Lead Market Makers” within Options 3, Section 7 to conform to the remainder of the Rulebook.
The Exchange proposes to amend All-or-None Orders within Options 3, Section 7(b)(5) to add more language to the description of an All-or-None Order to bring greater transparency to this order type. Today, the Exchange provides that All-or-None Orders are non-displayed and non-routable. To expand on this notion, the Exchange proposes to amend the sentence to provide, “All-or-None Orders are non-routable. The Exchange does not disseminate bids or offers of All-or-None Orders to OPRA and the Top of PHLX Options feed, however All-or-None Orders are displayed in the PHLX Orders
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 7(c)(3), “Opening Only,” to correct incorrect rule text, and also add a clarifying sentence. Today, Options 3, Section 7(c)(3) provides, “An Opening Only (“OPG”) order is entered with a Time in Force (“TIF”) of “OPG”. This order can only be executed in the Opening Process pursuant to Options 3, Section 8. This order type is not subject to any protections listed in Options 3, Section 15, except for Automated Quotation Adjustments.” The Exchange proposes to remove the phrase “except for Automated Quotation Adjustments” because, today, an OPG order is not subject to Automated Quotation Adjustments. As provided for within Options 3, Section 15(c), Automated Quotation Adjustments protections are available to Market Makers and Lead Market Makers only. Any participant may enter an Opening Only Order. Typically Market Makers and Lead Market Makers submit Valid Width Quotes,
The Exchange proposes to make a grammatical correction to Options 3, Section 10 which is non-substantive.
The Exchange proposes to update incorrect rule references within Options 3, Section 13.
The Exchange proposes to amend various references within Options 3, Section 13 to make clear the manner in which All-Or-None Orders
If the Initiating Member selected the single stop price option of the PIXL Auction (except if it is a Complex Order), PIXL executions will occur at prices that improve the stop price, and then at the stop price with up to 40% of the remaining contracts after Public Customer interest is satisfied being allocated to the Initiating Member at the stop price. However, if only one other participant matches the stop price, then the Initiating Member may be allocated up to 50% of the contracts executed at such price. Remaining contracts shall be allocated pursuant to the algorithm set forth in Options 3, Section 10(a)(1)(G) among remaining quotes, orders and PAN responses at the stop price. Thereafter, remaining contracts, if any, shall be allocated to the Initiating Member. The allocation will account for Surrender, if applicable.
Options 3, Section 10 considers All-Or-None Orders that can be satisfied. This proposal clarifies the current System operation.
The Exchange also proposes to add rule text, within Options 3, Section 13(f), to provide that with respect to a PIXL Order for the account of a Public Customer that is paired with an order for the account of another Public Customer, that All-or-None Orders that can be satisfied are included within the Reference BBO. The Exchange considers All-Or-None Orders when checking the Order Book for other Public Customer Orders. The proposed rule text within Options 3, Section 13(f) clarifies the current System operation. The addition of “including Reference BBO” is necessary with respect to Complex Orders because a Complex Public Customer-to-Public Customer Cross Order cannot trade equal to or through a non-displayed price. The Complex Public Customer-to-Public Customer Cross Order would be rejected if the result were that it would trade at a price equal to or through the cPBBO.
The Exchange proposes to note “including Reference BBO” within Options 3, Section 13(b)(2)(C) and 13(f) to conform the rule text throughout the rule. These amendments represent current System operation. The Reference BBO also pertains to Complex Orders because the cPBBO is derived from displayed quotes for the individual legs.
These amendments are intended to bring greater clarity to the representation of All-Or-None Orders within this Rule.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 13 in various places to replace “one minimum price improvement increment,” with “$0.01.” This amendment is non-substantive.
The Exchange proposes amendments to Options 3, Section 13(b)(7) and (8) to clarify the rule text. The proposed amendments are non-substantive and are similar to amendments recently made to BX Options 3, Section 13(ii)(I). The Exchange proposes to add some context to the rule to better reflect the current System operation. First, the Exchange purposes to add the word “execution” in the first sentences of Options 3, Section 13 (b)(7) and (8). The execution price of the PIXL Auction is utilized to compare to the price of an order on the Limit Order book. The Exchange utilizes the execution price today on Phlx. Adding the word “execution” makes clear to members that the initial PIXL Order stop price is not utilized to compare the same side of the market transactions at execution. If the potential execution price of the PIXL Order would be the same or better than the price of an order on the Limit Order book on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order then, today, the PIXL Order would be executed at a price $0.01 better than such limit order, regardless of whether such limit was a Public or Non-Public Customer Order. Second, while the phrase “or better” is not clearly specified in the rule text, today, the System captures cases where PAN responses provide price improvement for the PIXL Order at prices that are crossed with the same side interest mentioned above. Third, the remainder of the changes are grammatical and technical in nature. The Exchange is creating two separate sentences for readability.
The remainder of the proposed changes within Options 3, Section 13 are grammatical or technical in nature and therefore non-substantive.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 15(c)(1) to make clear that the Anti-Internalization functionality does not apply during the Opening Process described within Options 3, Section 8. A similar change was recently made to BX's Rules.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Options 3, Section 15 to note that with Automated Quotation Adjustments all interest entered through SQF will be automatically removed. As provided for within Options 3, Section 7(a)(i)(B),
Specialized Quote Feed” or “SQF” is an interface that allows Lead Market Makers, Streaming Quote Traders (“SQTs”) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (“RSQTs”) to connect, send, and receive messages related to quotes, Immediate-or-Cancel Orders, and auction responses into and from the Exchange. Features include the following: (1) Options symbol directory messages (
Today, Quotes and Immediate-or-Cancel Orders that may be entered through SQF are removed when the Automated Quotation Adjustment risk mechanism is triggered. The current rule text only considers quotes entered through SQF. The amendment will update the rule text to represent current System functionality, and will bring greater clarity to Automated Quotation removals. Market Makers and Lead Market Makers utilize the Immediate-or-Cancel Orders within SQF to respond to auctions. The auction response requires the same protection afforded by the Automation Quotation Adjustments which it affords the underlying option in which the Market Maker or Lead Market Maker is quoting continuously among its assigned options classes. The Automation Quotation Adjustments protection removes both quotes and Immediate-or-Cancel Orders submitted through SQF because Market Maker and Lead Market Maker risk applies to all interest in the underlying option in which the Market Maker or Lead Marker Maker is assigned to quote in throughout the trading day. Market Makers and Lead Marker Makers measure risk per underlying option. The System functionality for the Automated Quotation Adjustment is not being amended.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 23(a)(2) which describes the PHLX Orders data feed. The proposed amendments represent the current information contained in the PHLX Orders feed. The proposed amendments are intended to better represent the information in the feed by adding more description to the current rule text.
The Exchange proposes to note in the first sentence of Options 3, Section 23(a)(2) that PHLX Orders is a real-time full Limit Order book data feed that provides pricing information for orders on the PHLX Order book for displayed order types and All-or-None Orders,
All-or-None Orders are non-displayed and non-routable. They are executed in price-time priority among all Public Customer Orders if the size contingency can be met. All-or-None Orders have a quantity contingency requiring the full quantity of the order to execute in order for any trade to take place which may cause the order to not execute. If an All-or-None Order contingency cannot be met, the All-or-None Order would be bypassed until such time as the contingency could be met.
The PHLX Orders data feed displays all orders on the Phlx Order Book with original information, this is in contrast to the Top of PHLX Options
Similar to Phlx, Cboe permits all-or-none orders to rest in its order book and does not disseminate all-or-none orders to OPRA.
The Exchange proposes to remove the second use of the word “Limit”, as it is redundant. The additional text makes clear that both displayed and non-displayed orders types and market participant capacity are available.
The second sentence is being amended to add “and complex” in lieu of “single and Complex Orders, and Complex Order Live Auction (“COLA”) for all symbols listed on Phlx. The sentence, as proposed, would state, “PHLX Orders is currently provided as part of the TOPO Plus Orders data product. PHLX Orders provides real-time information to enable users to keep track of the single and complex order book(s).” The Exchange believes the proposed sentence is more succinct.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to add a sentence to the end of the description of PHLX Order feed that provides, “The feed also provides auction and exposure notifications and order imbalances on opening/reopening (size of matched contracts and size of the imbalance).” This additional information will more clearly describe the PHLX Orders feed. The Exchange also proposes to add the same sentence to the end of the description for the PHLX Depth of Market feed within Options 3, Section 23(a)(3) to also add the same specificity to that feed. The additional sentence reflects the current information provided in both the PHLX Orders and PHLX Depth of Market feeds.
The removal of the word “PHLX” within Options 3, Section 23(a)(3) and addition of the word “order” are non-substantive technical amendments.
The Exchange proposes to amend the sixth sentence of Options 5, Section 4(a) and make some technical amendments. As proposed, the sentence would provide, “For purposes of this rule, the Phlx's best bid or offer or “PBBO” does not include All-or-None Orders or Stop Orders which have not been triggered. The “internal PBBO” shall refer to the actual better price of an order resting on Phlx's Order Book, which is not displayed, but available for execution, excluding Stop Orders which have not been triggered and All-or-None Orders which cannot be satisfied.” Stop Orders must be triggered to be included in the internal PBBO. A Stop Order is not available until such time as its contingency is trigged and then that Stop Order becomes available for execution. Also, the Exchange inadvertently did not include the phrase, “which cannot be satisfied” when referencing All-or-None Orders within Options 5, Section 4. The limitation is noted in other places within this rule. An All-or-None Order contingency must be met for this order type to execute, otherwise it will be executed at such time as the contingency could be met. Unlike the Stop Order which is only available once triggered,
The Exchange proposes to add a sentence within Options 8, Section 2(a) which provides “The following terms as used in the Rules shall, unless the context otherwise indicates, have the meanings herein specified:”. The Exchange proposes this sentence for context to the information which follows thereafter. This is a non-substantive change.
The Exchange proposes to add a new defined term, “Floor Lead Market Maker.” This defined term will bring greater clarity to the Options 8 rules. The Exchange proposes to state, “The term `Floor Lead Market Maker' is a member who is registered as an options Lead Market Maker pursuant to Options 2, Section 12(a) and has a physical presence on the Exchange's trading floor.” This term is currently utilized within the Options 8 rules.
The Exchange proposes to add the word “Organization” within Options 8, Section 2(a)(5). The word was inadvertently left out. This is not a substantive change. The term “Member Organization” is a defined term within General 1, Section 1(17).
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 8, Section 32 to add “FLEX Option” to the list of order types that are available on Phlx. The Exchange proposes to provide that a FLEX Option is as described within Options 8, Section 34. Further, FLEX Options are not eligible for entry by a member for execution through the Options Floor Based Management System (“FBMS”).
(a) Options transactions on the Exchange's Trading Floor shall be executed in one of the following ways:
(1) automatically by the Exchange Trading System as provided in applicable Exchange Rules;
(2) through the Options Floor Based Management System. Members authorized to operate on the floor are not permitted to execute orders in the Exchange's options trading crowd, except as follows:
(A) The Exchange may determine to permit executions otherwise than in accordance with subparagraphs (1) and (2) above respecting an option or all options in the event of a problem with Exchange systems.
(B) In addition, members can execute orders in the options trading crowd pursuant to Options 8, Section 33, Accommodation Transactions (cabinet trades), and Options 8, Section 34, FLEX Equity, Index and Currency Options.
(C) Multi-leg orders with more than 15 legs can be executed in the trading crowd.
(D) The following split price orders that, due to FBMS system limitations, require manual calculation:
(i) Simple orders not expressed in the applicable minimum increment (“sub-MPV”) and that cannot be evenly split into two whole numbers to create a price at the midpoint of the minimum increment; and (ii) complex and multi-leg orders with at least one option leg with an odd-numbered volume that must trade at a sub-MPV price or one leg that qualifies under (i) above.
(E) As set forth in Options 8, Section 29(e)(v), members may use the Snapshot feature of the Options Floor Based Management System to provisionally execute orders in the options trading crowd.
Today, FLEX Options are executed in open outcry on the Trading Floor and not through the Options Floor Broker Management System as provided for within Options 8, Section 22(a)(1)(B).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to update the cross reference within Options 1, Section 1(b)(46), and make other grammatical amendments within Options 1, Section 1 are non-substantive.
The Exchange's proposal to add a title to Options 2, Section 4(c)(1) to make clear that this section applies intra-day is consistent with the Act because it will bring greater clarity to the rule text.
The Exchange's proposal to remove the phrase, “or its decimal equivalent rounded down to the nearest minimum increment” within Options 2, Section 4(c)(1) is a non-substantive amendment because the bid/ask differentials may be as wide as the spread between the national best bid and offer in the underlying security, if rounding up it would cause the spread to be wider than the underlying spread, so rounding is superfluous.
The Exchange's proposal to update certain terms within Options 2, Section 6, which conforms with a previously filed rule change,
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 6 to re-number and re-letter the rule to conform to Phlx's rule structure, update rule citations, and add spacing where necessary are non-substantive amendments.
The Exchange's proposal to amend current Options 3, Section 6(a)(ii)(B)(2)(g)(iv)(A)(4) is consistent with the Act. While processing an order that is working through Acceptable Trade Ranges, if that order encounters a situation where the Exchange's next available price is the ABBO that also equals the outer limit of the Acceptable Trade Range, the order is able to post at its limit price on the Order Book after routing after it is executed with quotes at the away exchange. Any unexecuted contracts which return to the Exchange may post at their original limit price with a new timestamp, subject to certain entry checks. Order entry checks are applied for new orders when they post to the Order Book as provided for in Phlx Options 3, Section 5(a)(4). This proposed rule text protects investors and the general public because it will provide market participants with an expectation of how the System will handle orders that remain unexecuted in this scenario. The proposed amendment provides the market participant with greater certainty as to the order. Further, the Exchange offers market participants various options with respect to routing. A market participant may elect to route as a FIND or SRCH Order which provides the Exchange with instructions as to how an order may route anew once posted on the Order Book.
The Exchange's proposal to amend current Options 3, Section 6(a)(ii)(B)(4)(a), to replace the term “cancelled immediately” with “rejected” conforms the rule text to other uses of the word rejected within the Rulebook. This amendment is non-substantive.
Finally, the Exchange's proposal to amend Supplementary Material .02 to Options 3, Section 6 to remove the phrase, “resulting in the dissemination of a “locked” quotation (
Similar to the changes proposed within Options 2, Section 6, the Exchange's proposal to replace the term “Registered Options Traders” or “ROTs” with “Market Makers” and replace “Specialists” with “Lead Market Makers” within Options 3, Section 7 conforms the usage of these terms within Phlx's Rulebook.
The Exchange's proposal to amend All-or-None Orders within Options 3, Section 7(b)(5) to add more language to the description of an All-or-None Order is consistent with the Act because the proposed rule text will bring greater transparency to this order type. The Exchange today provides that All-or-None Orders are non-displayed and non-routable. To expand on this notion, the Exchange proposes to amend the sentence to provide, “All-or-None Orders are non-routable. The Exchange does not disseminate bids or offers of All-or-None Orders to OPRA and the Top of PHLX Options feed, however All-or-None Orders are displayed in the PHLX Orders and PHLX Depth of Book feed.” This additional rule text will make clear that these order types are not disseminated on OPRA. Further, the Exchange proposes to add, “If an All-or-None Order contingency cannot be met, the All-or-None Order would be bypassed until such time as the contingency could be met.” This language is intended to make clear that an All-or-None Order will not cause other orders to queue until such time as the All-or-None Order may execute. Rather, the All-or-None Order will rest on the Order Book until the contingency will be met, at which time that Public Customer All-or-None Order will have priority over other orders on the Book. The Exchange believes the addition of this rule text will bring greater transparency to the current System handling of All-or-None Orders.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 7(c)(3), “Opening Only,” to correct incorrect rule text, and also add a clarifying sentence, is consistent with the Act. Today, Options 3, Section 7(c)(3) provides, “An Opening Only (“OPG”) order is entered with a TIF of “OPG”. This order can only be executed in the Opening Process pursuant to Options 3, Section 8. This order type would continue to not be valid outside of the Opening Process. This order type is not subject to any protections listed in Options 3, Section
The Exchange's proposal to make a grammatical correction to Options 3, Section 10 is non-substantive.
The Exchange's proposal to update certain rule references within Options 3, Section 13 is non-substantive.
The Exchange's proposal to amend various references within Options 3, Section 13 to make clear the manner in which All-Or-None Orders are treated within a PIXL Auction is consistent with the Act as this rule text will bring greater clarity to the current System operation. All-or None Orders are Limit Orders or Market Orders that are to be executed in their entirety or not at all, and are non-displayed.
The Exchange's proposal to add rule text, within Options 3, Section 13(f), to provide that with respect to a PIXL Order for the account of a Public Customer that is paired with an order for the account of another Public Customer, that All-Or-None Orders that can be satisfied are included within the Reference BBO is consistent with the Act. Today, Phlx does consider All-Or-None Orders when checking the Order Book for other Public Customer Orders. The proposed rule text within Options 3, Section 13(f) clarifies the current System operation. Specifically, the addition of “including Reference BBO” is necessary with respect to Complex Orders because a Complex Public Customer-to-Public Customer Cross Order cannot trade equal to or through a non-displayed price. The Complex Public Customer-to-Public Customer Cross Order would be rejected if the result were that it would trade at a price equal to or through the cPBBO.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13 in various places to replace “one minimum price improvement increment,” with “$0.01” is a non-substantive amendment.
The Exchange's proposed amendments to Options 3, Section 13(b)(7) and (8) are consistent with the Act because they clarify the current rule text by adding “or better” to make clear that the execution price may be better than an order on the Limit Order Book. Today, this is the case. This context reflects the current System operation. Similar amendments were made recently made to BX Options 3, Section 13(ii)(I).
The remainder of the proposed changes within Options 3, Section 13 are grammatical or technical in nature and therefore non-substantive.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 7(c)(3), “Opening Only,” to correct incorrect rule text, and also add a clarifying sentence is consistent with the Act. The Exchange's proposal to remove the phrase “except for Automated Quotation Adjustments” because, today, an OPG order is not subject to Automated Quotation Adjustments. As provided for within Options 3, Section 15(c), Automated Quotation Adjustments protections are available to Market Makers and Lead Market Makers only. Any participant may enter an Opening Only Order. Typically Market Makers and Lead Market Makers submit Valid Width Quotes, as provided for within Options 3, Section 8, during the Opening Process. Further, an Opening Sweep, which is utilized by Market Makers and Lead Market Makers, is protected by Automation Quotation Adjustments. Nasdaq BX, Inc. recently adopted a similar rule.
The Exchange's proposal to note that OPG orders may not route is consistent with the Act. This additional information will bring greater clarity to this TIF. This proposal represent current System functionality.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 15(c)(1) to make clear that the Anti-Internalization functionality does not apply during the Opening Process described within Options 3, Section 8 is consistent with the Act. Anti-Internalization will not apply during an Opening Process is consistent with the Act as it would provide more specificity on how this functionality currently operates. During the Opening Process, Lead Market Makers are able to observe the primary market and then determine how they would like to quote. Anti-Internalization is unnecessary during an Opening Process due to the high level of control that Lead Market Makers exercise over their quotes during this process. A similar change was recently made to BX's Rules.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 23(a)(2), which describes the PHLX Orders data feed, is consistent with the Act. All-or-None Orders are non-displayed and non-routable. They are executed in price-
The PHLX Orders data feed displays all orders on the Phlx Order Book with original information, this is in contrast to the Top of PHLX Options feed, which is not being amended by this proposal, that only provides information as to the displayed Order Book. The Exchange does not disseminate All-or-None Orders to either the Top of PHLX Options feed or the OPRA data feed because All-or-None Orders may only execute if the contingency can be met, otherwise the System would bypass the All-or-None Order. As such, All-or-None Orders are non-displayed to avoid locking or crossing away markets by displaying this order type which may not execute because of the contingency attributed to the order pursuant to the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Plan.
Similar to Phlx, Cboe permits all-or-none orders to rest in its order book and does not disseminate all-or-none orders to OPRA.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 5, Section 4(a) is consistent with the Act as the proposal clarifies the definition of internal PBBO. Stop Orders must be triggered to be included in the internal PBBO. A Stop Order is not available until such time as its contingency is trigged and then that Stop Order becomes available for execution. Also, the Exchange inadvertently did not include the phrase, “which cannot be satisfied” when referencing All-or-None Orders within Options 5, Section 4. The limitation is noted in other places within this rule. An All-or-None Order contingency must be met for this order type to execute, otherwise it will be executed at such time as the contingency could be met. Unlike the Stop Order which is only available once triggered,
The Exchange's proposal to add a new defined term, “Floor Lead Market Maker” is consistent with the Act and will bring greater clarity to the Options 8 rules. This term is currently utilized within the Options 8 rules.
The Exchange's proposal to add an introductory sentence within Options 8, Section 2(a) is a non-substantive amendment which will bring greater clarity to the rule text. The addition of the word “Organization” within Options 8, Section 2(a)(5) will correct the rule text to provide for a defined term.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 8, Section 32 to add “FLEX Option” to the list of order types that are available on Phlx is consistent with the Act because the addition of FLEX Options within Options 8, Section 34 will make clear the order types that are available for execution on the Trading Floor. Today, FLEX Options are executed in open outcry on the Trading Floor and not through the Options Floor Broker Management System as provided for within Options 8, Section 22B.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange's proposal to update the cross reference within Options 1, Section 1(b)(46) and make other grammatical amendments within Options 1, Section 1 does not impose an undue burden on competition as these amendments are non-substantive.
The Exchange's proposal to add a title to Options 2, Section 4(c)(1) to make clear that this section applies intra-day does not impose an undue burden on competition because it will bring greater clarity to the rule text.
The Exchange's proposal to remove the phrase, “or its decimal equivalent rounded down to the nearest minimum increment” within Options 2, Section 4(c)(1) does not impose an undue burden on competition. This is a non-substantive amendment because the bid/ask differentials may be as wide as the spread between the national best bid and offer in the underlying security, if rounding up it would cause the spread to be wider than the underlying spread, so rounding is superfluous.
The Exchange's proposal to update certain terms within Options 2, Section 6 conform the rule with the use of terms in the Rulebook
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 6 to re-number and re-letter the rule to conform to Phlx's rule structure, update rule citations, and add spacing where necessary does not impose an undue burden on competition as these amendments are non-substantive.
The Exchange's proposal to amend current Options 3, Section 6(a)(ii)(B)(2)(g)(iv)(A)(4) does not
The Exchange's proposal to amend current Options 3, Section 6(a)(ii)(B)(4)(a), to replace “cancelled immediately” with the term “rejected” conforms the rule text to other uses of the word rejected within the Rulebook. This amendment is non-substantive.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Supplementary Material .02 to Options 3, Section 6 does not impose an undue burden on competition as this amendment corrects out of date rule text. The System does not disseminate locked quotations, rather the System re-prices orders. The amendment will remove an inaccurate statement and bring greater clarity to the Rulebook.
The Exchange's proposal to update certain terms within Options 3, Section 7 to conform to a prior rule change
The Exchange's proposal to amend All-or-None Orders within Options 3, Section 7(b)(5) to add more language to the description of an All-or-None Order does not impose an undue burden on competition because the proposed rule text will bring greater transparency to this order type. The Exchange today provides that All-or-None Orders are non-displayed and non-routable. To expand on this notion, the Exchange proposes to amend the sentence to provide, “All-or-None Orders are non-routable. The Exchange does not disseminate bids or offers of All-or-None Orders to OPRA and the Top of PHLX Options feed, however All-or-None Orders are displayed in the PHLX Orders and PHLX Depth of Book feed.” This additional rule text will make clear that these order types are not disseminated on OPRA. Further, the Exchange proposes to add, “If an All-or-None Order contingency cannot be met, the All-or-None Order would be bypassed until such time as the contingency could be met.” This language is intended to make clear that an All-or-None Order will not cause other orders to queue until such time as the All-or-None Order may execute. Rather, the All-or-None Order will rest on the Order Book until the contingency will be met, at which time that Public Customer All-or-None Order will have priority over other orders on the Book. The Exchange believes the addition of this rule text will bring greater transparency to the current System handling of All-or-None Orders.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 7(c)(3), “Opening Only,” to amend incorrect rule text, and also add a clarifying sentence does not impose an undue burden on competition. An OPG Only Order may be executed by any market participant in the Opening Process pursuant to Options 3, Section 8. This order type would continue to not be not valid outside of the Opening Process.
Removing the phrase “except for Automated Quotation Adjustments” does not impose an undue burden on competition because, today, an OPG Order is not subject to Automated Quotation Adjustments. The Opening Process itself has boundaries within which orders will be executed. Any participant may enter an Opening Only Order. Typically Market Makers and Lead Market Makers submit Valid Width Quotes, as provided for within Options 3, Section 8, during the Opening Process. Further, an Opening Sweep which is utilized by Market Makers and Lead Market Makers, is protected by Automation Quotation Adjustments. The Exchange's proposal to note that OPG orders may not route will bring greater transparency to the rule.
The Exchange's proposal to make a grammatical correction to Options 3, Section 10 is non-substantive.
The Exchange's proposal to update certain rule references within Options 3, Section 13 is non-substantive.
The Exchange's proposal to amend various references within Options 3, Section 13 to make clear the manner in which All-Or-None Orders are treated by the System within a PIXL Auction does not impose an undue burden on competition as this rule text will bring greater clarity to the current System operation. All market participants will be treated in a uniform manner when they enter an All-Or-None Order into PIXL.
The Exchange's proposal to add rule text, within Options 3, Section 13(f), to provide that with respect to a PIXL Order for the account of a Public Customer that is paired with an order for the account of another Public Customer, that All-Or-None Orders that can be satisfied are included within the Reference BBO does not impose an undue burden on competition. The proposed rule text within Options 3, Section 13(f) clarifies the current System operation. The Reference BBO also pertains to Complex Orders because the cPBBO is derived from displayed quotes for the individual legs.
The Exchange's proposal to make clear where the Reference BBO is specified within this rule, or the Reference cPBBO, that All-or-None Orders are excluded does not impose an undue burden on competition. The Exchange proposes to note “including Reference BBO” within Options 3, Section 13(b)(2)(C) and 13(f) to conform the rule text. The Reference BBO also pertains to Complex Orders because the cPBBO is derived from displayed quotes for the individual legs. This represents current System operation.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 13 in various places to replace “one minimum price improvement increment,” with “$0.01” is a non-substantive amendment.
The Exchange's proposed amendments to Options 3, Section 13(b)(7) and (8) do not impose an undue burden on competition because they clarify current rule text without any substantive amendment.
The remainder of the proposed changes within Options 3, Section 13 are grammatical or technical in nature and therefore non-substantive.
The Exchange's proposal to note that the Automated Quotation Adjustments protection removes both quotes and Immediate-or-Cancel Orders does not impose an undue burden on competition. Market Makers and Lead Market Makers utilize the Immediate-or-Cancel Orders within SQF to respond to auctions. The auction response requires the same protection afforded by the Automation Quotation Adjustments which it affords the underlying option in which the Market Maker or Lead Market Maker is quoting continuously among its assigned options classes. The Automation Quotation Adjustments
The Exchange believes its proposal to clarify that Anti-Internalization will not apply during an Opening Process does not impose an undue burden on competition as it would provide more specificity on how this functionality currently operates. During the opening, Market Makers are able to observe the primary market and then determine how they would like to quote. Market Makers are sophisticated market participants that have their own tools and other protections to manage risk during the Opening Process.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 23(a)(2), which describes the PHLX Orders data feed, does not impose an undue burden on competition. The proposed amendments represent current information contained in the PHLX Orders feed. This proprietary data feed displays all orders on the Order Book with original information, whereas the Exchange's the Top of PHLX Options feed, which is not being amended by this proposal, only provides information as to the displayed order book. The Exchange does not disseminate non-displayed order information to the OPRA data feed, rather only non-displayed prices are submitted. The Exchange does display All-Or-None Orders on the PHLX Orders data feed to inform market participants of orders that are available for execution. Public Customers submitting All-or-None Orders on Phlx desire their orders to be executed and the display of those orders on the PHLX Orders data feed allows other member organizations to see their orders are available to execute against those orders. The proposed amendments are simply clarifying in nature and intended to add more description to the rule.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 5, Section 4(a), and make some technical amendments, does not impose an undue burden on competition. Stop Orders must be triggered to be included in the internal PBBO. A Stop Order is not available until such time as its contingency is triggered and then that Stop Order becomes available for execution. Also, the Exchange inadvertently did not include the phrase, “which cannot be satisfied” when referencing All-or-None Orders within Options 5, Section 4. The limitation is noted in other places within this rule. An All-or-None Order contingency must be met for this order type to execute, otherwise it will be executed at such time as the contingency could be met. Unlike the Stop Order which is only available once triggered,
The Exchange's proposal to add a new defined term, “Floor Lead Market Maker” does not impose an undue burden on competition. This defined term, which is currently utilized within the Options 8 rules, will bring greater clarity to the Options 8 rules.
The Exchange's proposal to add an introductory sentence within Options 8, Section 2(a) that provides context to the information that follows is a non-substantive amendment. The addition of the word “Organization” within Options 8, Section 2(a)(5) will make clear the reference to the defined term “member organization.”
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 8, Section 32 to add “FLEX Option” to the list of order types that are available on Phlx does not impose an undue burden on competition because the addition of FLEX Options within Options 8, Section 34 will make clear the order types that are available for execution on the Trading Floor. Today, FLEX Options are executed in open outcry on the Trading Floor and not through the Options Floor Broker Management System as provided for within Options 8, Section 22B.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
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 Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to relocate its PSX equity and general rules from its current Rulebook into its new Rulebook shell and make other changes to the Phlx Rules.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this rule change is to relocate the PSX equity and general rules from the current Rulebook into the new Rulebook shell
The Exchange proposes to update all cross-references within the Rulebook shell to the new relocated rule cites. The Exchange proposes to replace internal rule references to simply state “this Rule” where the rule is citing itself without a more specific cite included in the Rule. For example, if PSX Rule 4619 refers currently to “Rule 4619” or “this Rule 4619” the Exchange will amend the phrase to simply “this Rule.” Except where the Exchange specifies below that it will retain the current rule numbering, the Exchange also proposes to conform the paragraph numbering and lettering to that used in the Rulebook shell for greater consistency, and to correct punctuation. The Exchange proposes to replace “PSX Rules” with “Equity Rules” where applicable as the title of the ruleset is proposed to be “Equity Rules.” Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to delete any empty reserved rules and already deleted rules in the current Rulebook. Finally, the Exchange proposes to make certain technical corrections to add hyphens and spacing where necessary.
In addition to updating rule citations impacted by the proposed rule relocations herein, the Exchange
The Exchange proposes to add a title under “General 1 General Provisions” which states “Section 1 Definitions.” Also, the Exchange proposes to update rule citations to relocated rules as well as rule citations to rules which were previously relocated in the Prior Relocation Rule Change. The Exchange notes that The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) recently amended certain rule citations which also impact proposed changes herein, particularly with respect to General 4 rule numbering.
The Exchange proposes to relocate Rule 3600. Regulatory Services Agreements to General 2, Section 5, which was reserved. The Exchange proposes to update rule citations to rules which were previously relocated in the Prior Relocation Rule Change.
The Exchange proposes to re-title General 4 as “Registration Requirements.” The rule is currently titled “Regulation.” The Exchange proposes to add a period at the end of General 4, Section 1. The Exchange also proposes to amend rule numbering to conform with a recent Nasdaq rule change.
The Exchange proposes to relocate the text of Minor Rule Violations rules into General 5. Today, the Minor Rule Violations, except for violations of General 7, are delineated within General 5. The Exchange proposes to relocate the rule text of each Minor Rule violation rule from the PSX Rulebook into General 5 and remove the duplicative list of Minor Rule Violations from the PSX Rulebook. With respect to violations of General 7, the Exchange proposes to add General 7, Failure to Comply with the Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rule requirements, into the list of Equity Floor Procedure Advices within General 5, Section 3, Code of Procedure. General 7 was recently added to The Equity Minor Rule Violations.
The Exchange proposes to remove “Floor” from the title “Equity Floor Procedure Advices” as PSX is an electronic only market.
The Exchange proposes to delete the title “A. Miscellaneous,” “E. Staffing,” “F. Miscellaneous,” and “S. Pre-Opening Procedures,” “Rule 60 Regulations” including Regulation 1-Regulations 7 from the PSX Rulebook.
The Exchange proposes to relocate the below rules into General 9.
Today, the Rulebook contains both an equity and option rule, which are identical, for Conduct Inconsistent with Just and Equitable Principles of Trade, Acts Detrimental to the Interest or Welfare of the Exchange, Telemarketing, and Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program. The Exchange is relocating a version of each of these rules to General 9 and eliminating the corresponding options and equity rules. The General 9 rules apply to both the equity and options markets.
The Exchange also proposes a number of corrective changes to Disruptive Quoting and Trading Activity Prohibited which was relocated to General 9, Section 53 in the Prior Relocation Rule Change. First, in Section 53(a), the Exchange proposes to update the references to “subsections (i) and (ii)” to “subsections (1) and (2).” Second, the Exchange proposes in Section 53(a)(1)(B)(ii) to update the reference to “paragraph (b)(i)” to “paragraph (B)(i).” The Exchange proposes to reserve Section 71 to harmonize Phlx's rule numbers with Nasdaq.
The Exchange proposes to relocate Rule 3301, Equity Definitions, into new Equity 1, Section 1. The Exchange is amending the first sentence of new Equity 1, Section 1 to provide, “The following definitions apply to the Equity Rules for the trading of securities on PSX.” While Rule 3301 currently provides that the definitions apply to the Rule 3200 and 3300 Series, the Exchange notes that the definitions apply to all rules under the heading Equity Rules and therefore proposes to amend the current text further to apply the relocated definitions to the entire section related to the equity market.
The definition for “PSX Participant” currently is defined to mean, “. . . an entity that fulfills the obligations contained in Rule 3211 regarding participation in the System, and shall include: . . .”. PSX Rule 3211 was previously deleted.
The Exchange proposes to relocate the following rules into Equity 2 which is titled Equity Market Participants. The Exchange proposes to instead title this section “Market Participants” to conform to Nasdaq's Rulebook Structure.
The Exchange is amending the first sentence of new Equity 2, Section 1 to provide, “Unless otherwise specified, the Equity Rules apply only to the quoting and trading of System Securities via PSX.” Current Rule 3201 references the 3200 Series (Requirements for PSX Participants). However all equity rules apply to equities trading on PSX. Broadening the language of Equity 2, Section 1 is consistent with the manner in which equities rules are applied today with respect to trading and other aspects of conducting business on PSX.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Equity 2, Section 2(a) to provide, “For purposes of the Equity Rules, unless the context requires otherwise:”. The original reference was to the 3000 Series, although the definitions which follow relate to federal rules which would apply to all Equity Rules. The Exchange proposes to amend the current text to apply the relocated definitions to the entire section related to the equity market to distinguish these rules from the General Rules and Options Rules.
The Exchange also proposes to update a rule citation within proposed Equity 2, Section 10, Withdrawal of Quotations, at paragraph (d). This paragraph (d) which discusses withdrawal status, relates to quotations, and provides,
Excused withdrawal status may be granted to a PSX Market Maker that fails to maintain a clearing arrangement with a registered clearing agency or with a member of such an agency and is withdrawn from participation in the trade reporting service of PSX, thereby terminating its registration as a PSX Market Maker; provided, however, that if the Exchange finds that the PSX Market Maker's failure to maintain a clearing arrangement is voluntary, the withdrawal of quotations will be considered voluntary and unexcused pursuant to Rule 3220 and the Rule 3300 Series governing PSX. PSX Market Makers that fail to maintain a clearing relationship will have their PSX system status set to “suspend” and be thereby prevented from entering, or executing against, any quotes/orders in the system.
The Exchange proposes to replace Rule 3220 (Voluntary Termination of Registration) with its relocated rule reference, Equity 2, Section 11. The Exchange proposes to replace the Rule 3300 Series rules reference with Equity 4. The Rule 3300 Series was relocated to Equity 4 with the exception of the Equity 6, Section 3, Phlx Kill Switch. The Phlx Kill Switch's relocation to Equity 6 does not impact its reference within this rule which described a PSX Market Maker's voluntary failure to maintain a clearing arrangement and its impact on the withdrawal of quotations.
The Exchange proposes to reserve Equity 3, currently titled “Equity Trading Rules.”
The Exchange proposes to re-title Equity 4, currently titled “Limit Up-Limit Down,” to “Equity Trading Rules.” The Exchange proposes to relocate the following rules into Equity 4 and retain the current rule numbering:
The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 3202, Application of Other Rules of the Exchange, as The Limited Liability Company Agreement of the Exchange and The By-Laws of the Exchange are part of the Phlx Rulebook and therefore apply to PSX already. As such, the Exchange believes that the rule is duplicative and not necessary.
The Exchange proposes to delete the reference to “Sec. 44 FINRA Jurisdiction Over Arbitrations Against Exchange Members” within PSX Rule 3202, Application of Other Rules of the Exchange, as that rule is not located in the Phlx Rulebook. Rule 950 describes Arbitration rules related to members on Phlx and PSX.
The Exchange proposes to update an erroneous citation to PSX Rule 0120(x), currently within PSX Rule 3303, to Equity 1, Section 1(a).
The Exchange also proposes to delete PSX Rules 3210 and 3211 because these rules do not contain substantive text.
The Exchange proposes to remove an outdated reference to Rule 4770 within Supplementary Material .01 to PSX Rule 3317 and instead utilize the term “Rule” to refer to Rule 3317. There is no Rule 4770 within the current Phlx Rulebook.
The Exchange proposes to relocate the below rules into Equity 5, “Order Audit Trail Services”:
The Exchange proposes to amend a rule citation within Equity 5, Section 6, Violation of Order Audit Trail System Rules. The definition of System is being
The Exchange proposes to title Equity 6, which is currently reserved, as “PSX Risk Management Services; Other Systems and Programs,” and to relocate the following rules into Equity 6:
The Exchange proposes to reserve Equity 8 which is currently titled “Uniform Practice Code.”
The Exchange proposes to title Equity 8A as “Unlisted Trading Privileges, Proxy and Other Rules.” The Exchange proposes to relocate the following rules into Equity 8A:
The Exchange proposes to re-title Equity 9, currently “Supplementary Conduct Rules,” to “Business Conduct,” and to relocate the following rules into Equity 9:
The Exchange proposes to title Equity 10, which is currently reserved, to “Other Products and Securities,” and to relocate the following rules into Equity 10:
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Equity 11 and title this section “Uniform Practice Code.” The following rules will be relocated into Equity 11:
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange is not substantively amending rule text. The renumbering, re-lettering, deleting reserved and already deleted rules, amending cross-references and other minor technical changes will bring greater transparency to the Exchange's Rules. The Exchange's affiliates intend to file similar rule changes to relocate their respective equity and general rules into the same location in each Rulebook for ease of reference. The Exchange believes its proposal will benefit investors and the general public by increasing the transparency of its Rulebook and
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments do not impose an undue burden on competition because the amendments to relocate the equity and general rules are non-substantive. This rule change is intended to bring greater clarity to the Exchange's Rules and to promote easy comparisons among the various Nasdaq affiliated exchanges' Rulebooks. Renumbering, re-lettering, deleting reserved rules and amending cross-references will bring greater transparency to the Exchange's Rules.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 28, 2020, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-FINRA-2020-038 (“Proposed Rule Change”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For certain private placements of unregistered securities issued by a FINRA member or a control entity
FINRA proposes amendments to Rules 5122 and 5123 to require members or control persons to file private placement retail communications
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act to determine whether the Amended Proposed Rule Change should be approved or disapproved.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the Amended Proposed Rule Change. Specifically, the Commission is requesting comment on whether the Amended Proposed Rule Change adequately addresses commenters' concerns regarding the scope of the proposed filing requirement in light of the regulatory goals of improving the quality of broker-dealer private placement communications and strengthening FINRA's ability to monitor for potential violations of its rules governing members' communications with the public. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the Amended Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder.
Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the Amended Proposed Rule Change should be approved or disapproved by February 24, 2021. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by March 8, 2021.
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.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-FINRA-2020-038 and should be submitted on or before February 24, 2021. If comments are received, any rebuttal comments should be submitted on or before March 8, 2021.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes a rule change relating to the ALPS Active REIT ETF (the “Fund”) of ALPS ETF Trust (the “Trust”), to list and trade shares of the Fund under Nasdaq Rule 5750 (“Proxy Portfolio Shares”). The shares of the Fund are collectively referred to herein as the “Shares.”
(b) Not applicable. [sic]
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Commission has approved the listing and trading of Proxy Portfolio Shares under Nasdaq Rule 5750, which governs the listing and trading of Proxy Portfolio Shares on the Exchange.
The Fund is an actively-managed exchange-traded fund (“ETF”). The Shares are offered by the Trust, which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on September 13, 2007.
Nasdaq Rule 5750(b)(5) provides that if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Proxy Portfolio Shares
(A) Ticker symbol;
(B) CUSIP or other identifier;
(C) Description of holding;
(D) Quantity of each security or other asset held; and
(E) Percentage weight of the holding in the portfolio.
In addition, any person or entity, including a custodian, Reporting Authority,
In the event (a) the Adviser or any sub-adviser registers as a broker-dealer, or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with another broker-dealer, it will implement and will maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel and/or such broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's Portfolio and/or the Proxy Basket and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Fund's Portfolio and/or the Proxy Basket.
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
The investment objective of the Fund will be to seek total return through dividends and capital appreciation. Under normal market conditions,
Under the terms of the Exemptive Order,
The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of Proxy Portfolio Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of Proxy Portfolio Shares on the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products. The Exchange will require the issuer of each series of Proxy Portfolio Shares listed on the Exchange to represent to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under the Nasdaq 5800 Series. In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
The Adviser will upon request make available to the Exchange and/or Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), on behalf of the Exchange, the daily Fund Portfolio of each series of Proxy Portfolio Shares. The Exchange believes that this is appropriate because it will provide the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, with access to the daily Fund Portfolio of any series of Proxy Portfolio Shares upon request on an as needed basis. The Exchange believes that the ability to access the information on an as needed basis will provide it with sufficient information to perform the necessary regulatory functions associated with listing and trading series of Proxy Portfolio Shares on the Exchange, including the ability to monitor compliance with the initial and continued listing requirements as well as the ability to surveil for manipulation of the Shares.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. Nasdaq will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12).
Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Proxy Portfolio Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the financial instruments composing the Proxy Basket or Fund Portfolio; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Proxy Portfolio Shares also will be subject to Rule 5750(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which a series of Proxy Portfolio Shares may be halted.
Nasdaq deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Nasdaq will allow trading in the Shares from 4:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in Nasdaq Rule 5750(b)(3), the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in Proxy Portfolio Shares traded on the Exchange is $0.01.
Form N-PORT requires reporting of a fund's complete portfolio holdings on a position-by-position basis on a quarterly basis within 60 days after fiscal quarter end. Investors can obtain a fund's Statement of Additional Information, its Shareholder Reports, its Form N-CSR, filed twice a year, and its Form N-CEN, filed annually. A fund's SAI and Shareholder Reports are available for free upon request from the Investment Company, and those documents and the Form N-PORT, Form N-CSR, and Form N-CEN may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's website at
For the Fund, the Proxy Basket will consist of all of the Fund's portfolio holdings but will be weighted differently, subject to a minimum weightings overlap of 90% with the Fund's Portfolio at the beginning of each business day. Intraday pricing information for all constituents of the Proxy Basket that are exchange-traded, which includes all eligible instruments except cash and cash equivalents, will be available on the exchanges on which they are traded and through subscription services. Intraday pricing information for cash equivalents will be available through subscription services and/or pricing services. The Exchange notes that the Fund's net asset value (“NAV”) will form the basis for creations and redemptions for the Fund and creations and redemptions will work in a manner substantively identical to that of series of Managed Fund Shares.
The Proxy Basket will be constructed utilizing a proprietary algorithmic process that will be applied to the Fund Portfolio on a daily basis. The Proxy Basket will be publicly available on the Fund website before the commencement of trading in Fund Shares on each business day. The Proxy Basket will contain all of the names of the securities in the Fund Portfolio, and only the securities that are in the Fund Portfolio (and also could contain cash to represent the Fund Portfolio's holdings of cash). The Proxy Basket will have a minimum overlap of 90% with the Fund Portfolio at the beginning of each business day, with the precise
In addition to the disclosure of the Proxy Basket, the Fund will also publish the “Guardrail Amount” on its website on each business day before the commencement of trading in Shares on the Exchange. The Guardrail Amount is the maximum deviation between the weightings of the specific securities and cash positions in the Proxy Basket from the weightings of those specific securities and cash positions in the Fund Portfolio. The Guardrail Amount is intended to ensure that no individual security in the Proxy Basket will be overweighted or underweighted by more than the publicly disclosed percentage when compared to the actual weighting of each security within the Fund Portfolio as of the beginning of each business day. The Adviser expects the performance of the Proxy Basket and the Fund Portfolio to be closely aligned in light of the construction of the Proxy Basket, and does not expect the “Tracking Error” to exceed 1%. “Tracking Error” is defined to mean the standard deviation over the past three months of the daily difference, in percentage terms, between the Proxy Basket per Share NAV and that of the Fund at the end of the business day.
The Fund will also disclose the entirety of its portfolio holdings, including the name, identifier, market value and weight of each security and instrument in the portfolio, at a minimum within at least 60 days following the end of every fiscal quarter. As described above, the Exchange notes that the concept of the Proxy Basket employed under this structure is designed to provide investors with the traditional benefits of ETFs while protecting the Fund from the potential for front running or free riding of portfolio transactions, which could adversely impact the performance of the Fund.
The Exchange represents that the Shares of the Fund will continue to comply with all other proposed requirements applicable to Proxy Portfolio Shares, including the dissemination of key information such as the Proxy Basket, the Fund Portfolio, and NAV, suspension of trading or removal, trading halts, surveillance, minimum price variation for quoting and order entry, an information circular informing members of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading in the series of Proxy Portfolio Shares, and firewalls as set forth in the proposed Exchange rules applicable to Proxy Portfolio Shares.
Price information for the exchange-listed instruments held by the Fund, including both U.S. and non-U.S. listed equity securities and U.S. exchange-listed futures will be available through major market data vendors or securities exchanges listing and trading such securities. Moreover, U.S.-listed equity securities held by the Fund will trade on markets that are a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding the description of the portfolio or reference assets, limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, dissemination and availability of reference assets (as applicable) such as the Fund Portfolio and Proxy Basket, or the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for the Shares. A minimum of 100,000 Shares of the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares of the Fund that the NAV per share of the Fund will be calculated daily and will be made available to all market participants at the same time.
The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund or Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. FINRA conducts certain cross-market surveillances on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory services agreement. If a Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under the Nasdaq 5800 Series.
Nasdaq believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the particular instruments that may be included in the Fund Portfolio and Proxy Basket do not raise any concerns related to the Proxy Basket being able to closely track the NAV of the Fund because such instruments include only instruments that trade on an exchange contemporaneously with the Shares. In addition, the Fund's Proxy Basket is designed to reliably and consistently correlate to the performance of the Fund.
The Adviser anticipates that the returns between the Fund and its respective Proxy Basket will have a consistent relationship and that the deviation in the returns between the Fund and its Proxy Basket will be sufficiently small such that the Proxy Basket will provide authorized participants, arbitrageurs and other market participants (collectively, “Market Makers”) with a reliable hedging vehicle that they can use to effectuate low-risk arbitrage trades in Fund Shares. The Exchange believes that the disclosures provided by the Fund will allow Market Makers to understand the relationship between the performance of the Fund and its Proxy Basket. Market Makers will be able to estimate the value of and hedge positions in the Fund's Shares, which
The Exchange notes that a significant amount of information about the Fund and its Fund Portfolio is publicly available at all times. Each series will disclose the Proxy Basket, which is designed to closely track the daily performance of the Fund Portfolio, on a daily basis. Intraday pricing information for all constituents of the Proxy Basket that are exchange-traded, which includes all eligible instruments except cash and cash equivalents, will be available on the exchanges on which they are traded and through subscription services. Intraday pricing information for cash equivalents will be available through subscription services and/or pricing services. Each series of Proxy Portfolio Shares will at a minimum publicly disclose the entirety of its portfolio holdings, including the name, identifier, market value and weight of each security and instrument in the portfolio within at least 60 days following the end of every fiscal quarter in a manner consistent with normal disclosure requirements otherwise applicable to open-end investment companies registered under the 1940 Act.
The website will include additional quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, on a per Share basis for the Fund, the prior business day's NAV and the closing price or bid/ask price at the time of calculation of such NAV, and a calculation of the premium or discount of the closing price or bid/ask price against such NAV. The website will also disclose any other information regarding premiums and discounts and the bid/ask spread for the Fund as may be required for other ETFs under Rule 6c-11 under the 1940 Act, as amended. On each business day, before the commencement of trading of Shares, the Fund will publish on its website the Proxy Basket and the Guardrail Amount for that day.
The Exchange represents that the Shares of the Fund will continue to comply with all other proposed requirements applicable to Proxy Portfolio Shares, including the dissemination of key information such as the Proxy Basket, disclosure of the Fund Portfolio quarterly, and NAV, suspension of trading or removal, trading halts, surveillance, minimum price variation for quoting and order entry, an information circular informing members of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading in the series of Proxy Portfolio Shares, and firewalls as set forth in the proposed Exchange rules applicable to Proxy Portfolio Shares and the orders approving such rules. Moreover, U.S.-listed equity securities held by the Fund will trade on markets that are a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding the description of the portfolio or reference assets, limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, dissemination and availability of reference asset (as applicable), or the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for the Shares. The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund or Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. A minimum of 100,000 Shares of the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares of the Fund that the NAV per share of the Fund will be calculated daily and will be made available to all market participants at the same time.
FINRA conducts certain cross-market surveillances on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory services agreement. If a Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under the Nasdaq 5800 Series.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing of a new type of actively-managed exchange-traded product, thus enhancing competition among both market participants and listing venues, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 22, 2020, DTCC Data Repository (U.S.), LLC (“DDR”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) an application on Form SDR to register as a security-based swap data repository (“SDR”) pursuant to Section 13(n)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and 17 CFR 240.13n-1 (“Rule 13n-1”) thereunder,
Section 13(n) of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful for any person, unless registered with the Commission, directly or indirectly, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to perform the functions of an SDR.
The Commission also has adopted 17 CFR 242.900 to 909 under the Exchange Act (collectively, “Regulation SBSR”), which governs regulatory reporting and public dissemination of security-based swap transactions.
In 2019, the Commission stated that implementation of the SBS Reporting Rules can and should be done in a manner that carries out the fundamental policy goals of the SBS Reporting Rules while minimizing burdens as much as practicable.
As noted above, to be registered with the Commission as an SDR and maintain such registration, an SDR is required to comply with the requirements and core principles described in Section 13(n) of the Exchange Act, as well as with any requirement that the Commission may impose by rule or regulation.
In determining whether an applicant meets the criteria set forth in Rule 13n-1(c), the Commission will consider the information reflected by the applicant on its Form SDR, as well as any additional information obtained from the applicant. For example, Form SDR requires an applicant to provide a list of the asset classes for which the applicant is collecting and maintaining data or for which it proposes to collect and maintain data, a description of the functions that it performs or proposes to perform, general information regarding its business organization, and contact information.
Consistent with the Commission's no-action statement in the ANE Adopting Release,
As noted above, DDR intends to operate as a registered SDR for the equity, credit, and interest rate derivatives asset classes.
DDR is a New York limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of DTCC Deriv/SERV LLC (“Deriv/SERV”), which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”).
In addition, the DDR Board is responsible for the appointment and removal of the chief compliance officer (“CCO”) and approval of CCO compensation, which is at the discretion of the Board and effected by a majority vote.
The CCO, in consultation with the DDR Audit Committee, will resolve all conflicts of interest.
According to DDR, access to and usage of its SDR service will be available to all market participants that engage in SBS transactions, and DDR does not and will not bundle or tie its SDR services with any other services.
To be granted access to the DDR system, receive trade information, confirm or verify transactions, submit messages, or receive reports, a market participant must be an onboarded user.
To participate in the SDR services offered by DDR, each user will be required to enter into a user agreement; by entering into a user agreement each user agrees to be bound by the terms of the user agreement and DDR Operating Procedures, which incorporate terms of DDR's Rulebook.
The DDR Operating Procedures provide that each user agrees to defend and indemnify DDR from and against all reasonable losses, liabilities, damages, judgments, settlements, fines, costs, and expenses DDR may incur directly arising out of or directly relating to the acts or omissions of a user's participation or failure to participate (for itself or on behalf of others) in DDR's services or DDR's system, any unauthorized access to DDR's system through such user's interface with DDR's system, or any other matter directly relating to such user that is not the responsibility of DDR under the DDR Operating Procedures, except to the extent that such losses arise out of or relate to the DDR's negligence or willful misconduct.
With respect to prohibiting or limiting a person's access to SDR services, the DDR Rulebook outlines the process required for DDR to decline an application to become a user of SDR services.
With respect to DDR temporarily denying a user access to or imposing restrictions on its use of the DDR system, the DDR Rulebook provides that DDR may take such action where a user: (i) Violates DDR rules; (ii) refuses to or neglects to comply with any direction DDR deems reasonably necessary to protect its systems and other users; (iii) or any error, delay, or other conduct that materially and adversely affects the operations of DDR (each a “Subject Event”).
In addition, the DDR Rulebook provides that DTCC has established a Technology Risk Management Team, whose role is to manage information security risk and ensure the availability, integrity, and confidentiality of the organization's information assets.
The DDR system is supported by DTCC and relies on the disaster recovery program maintained by DTCC.
The application provides that DDR will provide Market Participants with the ability to submit data for over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives for credits, equities, rates, foreign exchange (“FX”) and other commodity asset classes.
DDR's Operating Procedures provides that DDR and each user agrees that each will treat as confidential (both during and after the termination of a user's access to DDR's system) all confidential information (defined as: (i) With respect to DDR, transaction data specified in records received by DDR and any data, reports, summaries or payment amounts which may be produced as a result of processing such transaction data, and (ii) with respect to any user, the technical specifications of DDR's system (to the extent not publicly disclosed by DDR; but confidential information does not include data distributed to the public in accordance will applicable law).
The application includes DDR's fee schedules.
In addition to the Position Maintenance Fee, the application indicates that DDR will charge an annual “Account Management Fee,” currently set at $1,200.00, that will apply to all accounts and will be prorated in the year the account is opened.
DDR's fee policy further provides that users will have the option to elect to enter into a long-term commitment for a period ending December 31, 2024 (“Long Term Commitment”), which would reduce the applicable Position Maintenance Fee and Account Management Fee by ten percent, exclusive of tax, for the duration of the Long-Term Commitment.
The DDR Rulebook provides that DDR will maintain all information as required by applicable law as well as maintain swap and security-based swap data throughout the existence of the swap and security-based swap and for 15 years following termination of the swap or security-based swap or as otherwise required by applicable regulations.
DDR publishes a disclosure document to provide a summary of information regarding its service offerings and the SBS data it maintains.
As a registered SDR, DDR would carry out an important role in the regulatory reporting and public dissemination of SBS transactions. As noted above, DDR has stated that it intends to rely on the no-action statement included in the ANE Adopting Release for the period set forth in the ANE Adopting Release with respect to any SBS asset class or classes for which it intends to accept transaction reports.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning DDR's Form SDR, including whether DDR has satisfied the requirements for registration as an SDR and as a SIP. Commenters are requested, to the extent possible, to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SBSDR-2020-01.
Copies of the Form SDR, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the Form SDR that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the Form SDR between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SBSDR-2020-01 and should be submitted on or before March 3, 2021.
By the Commission.
The Department of State will conduct a public meeting by way of teleconference on Thursday, March 11, 2021 starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern standard time. Members of the public may participate up to the capacity of the teleconference phone line, which will handle 500 participants. To access the teleconference line, participants should call (202) 475-4000 and use Participant Code: 138 541 34#.
The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the eighth session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR 8) to be held remotely on March 22-26, 2021.
The agenda items to be considered include:
Those who plan to participate may contact the meeting coordinator, Ms. Melissa Perera, by email at
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of decision instituting a proceeding to determine the railroad industry's 2020 cost of capital.
The Board is instituting a proceeding to determine the railroad industry's cost of capital for 2020. The decision solicits comments on the following issues: The railroads' 2020 current cost of debt capital; the railroads' 2020 current cost of preferred equity capital (if any); the railroads' 2020 cost of common equity capital; and the 2020 capital structure mix of the railroad industry on a market value basis.
Notices of intent to participate are due by March 29, 2021. Statements of the railroads are due by April 19, 2021. Statements of other interested persons are due by May 10, 2021. Rebuttal statements by the railroads are due by June 2, 2021.
Comments may be filed with the Board via e-filing on the Board's website.
Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245-0333. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
The decision in this proceeding is posted at
49 U.S.C. 10704(a)
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.
RYAL, LLC (RYAL), a noncarrier, has filed a notice for a modified certificate of public convenience and necessity under 49 CFR part 1150 subpart C—
RYAL states that the Line was authorized for abandonment by a decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission in Docket No. AB 7 (Sub-No. 86) served on January 30, 1980, but the abandonment was not consummated. According to RYAL, the Line was sold to the Port in 1982 for continued rail service
According to the notice, RYAL and the Port have entered into an Operating Lease Agreement, dated December 17, 2020. Furthermore, RYAL states that the Port has agreed to accept RYAL's assumption of WRL's lease, to be effective upon the renewal of the lease on February 12, 2021. (Notice 4.)
The Line qualifies for a modified certificate of public convenience and necessity.
This notice will be served on the Association of American Railroads (Car Service Division), as agent for all railroads subscribing to the car-service and car-hire agreement, at 425 Third Street SW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20024; and on the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association at 50 F Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001.
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists Grandfathering Registration for projects by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
January 1-31, 2021.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and
This notice lists GF Registration for projects, described below, pursuant to 18 CFR 806, Subpart E for the time period specified above:
Grandfathering Registration Under 18 CFR part 806, subpart E:
1. Borough of Tyrone—Public Water Supply System, GF Certificate No. GF-202101147, Snyder Township, Blair County, Pa.; Sink Run; Issue Date: January 14, 2021.
2. Borough of Millheim—Millheim Borough Water Company, GF Certificate No. GF-202101148, Millheim Borough and Penn Township, Centre County, Pa.; Phillips Creek; Issue Date: January 14, 2021.
3. South Renovo Borough—Public Water Supply System, GF Certificate No. GF-202101149, Noyes Township, Clinton County, Pa.; Halls Run Reservoir and Well 1; Issue Date: January 14, 2021.
4. Geneva Farm Golf Course, Inc.—Geneva Farm Golf Club, GF Certificate No. GF-202101150, Street, Harford County, Md.; combined withdrawal from Wells 1, 2, and 3 and Irrigation Pond; Issue Date: January 22, 2021.
5. Kreamer Municipal Authority—Public Water Supply System, GF Certificate No. GF-202101151, Middlecreek Township, Snyder County, Pa.; Wells 4 and 9; Issue Date: January 22, 2021.
6. Saint Francis University, GF Certificate No. GF-202101152, Allegheny Township and Loretto Borough, Cambria County, Pa.; Wells 1 and 2; Issue Date: January 26, 2021.
7. McClure Municipal Authority—Public Water Supply System, GF Certificate No. GF-202101153, McClure Borough, Snyder County, Pa.; Wells 1, 3, and 4; Issue Date: January 26, 2021. Authority: Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
8. SUEZ Water Pennsylvania Inc.—Dallas Operation, GF Certificate No. GF-202101154, Dallas Township, Luzerne County, Pa.; Country Club Well, Bunn Well, Haddonfield Well, and Snyder Well; Issue Date: January 26, 2021.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will conduct its regular business meeting on March 12, 2021, from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Details concerning the matters to be addressed at the business meeting are contained in the
The meeting will be held on Friday, March 12, 2021, at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be conducted telephonically from the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 N Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission, telephone: 717-238-0423; fax: 717-238-2436.
The business meeting will include actions or presentations on the following items: (1) Recognition of SRBC's 50th anniversary; (2) release of proposed rulemaking for public comment; (3) ratification/approval of contracts/grants; and (4) Regulatory Program projects.
This agenda is complete at the time of issuance, but other items may be added, and some stricken without further notice. The listing of an item on the agenda does not necessarily mean that the Commission will take final action on it at this meeting. When the Commission does take final action, notice of these actions will be published in the
Due to the COVID-19 orders, the meeting will be conducted telephonically and there will be no physical public attendance. The public is invited to attend the Commission's business meeting by telephone conference and may do so by dialing Conference Call # 1-888-387-8686, the Conference Room Code # 9179686050. Written comments pertaining to items on the agenda at the business meeting may be mailed to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-1788, or submitted electronically through
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2021.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2021.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2021.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On May 19, 2020, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. SHANGHAI SAINT LOGISTICS LIMITED, Rm 910, 9/F, 650 Han Kou Road, Huang Pu District, Shanghai, China; Rm 930, Building C, Cifi Air Center, Shunyi District, Beijing, China; Email Address
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism,” (E.O. 13224), 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786, as amended by Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, “Modernizing Sanctions to Combat Terrorism,” 84 FR 48041 (E.O. 13224, as amended) for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, MAHAN AIR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on February 4, 2021.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), Department of the Treasury.
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of the Treasury, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, proposes to modify a current Treasury system of records titled, “Treasury/TTB .001 Regulatory Enforcement Record System,” which will now be titled “Department of the Treasury, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) .001—Regulatory Enforcement System of Records.”
Submit comments on or before March 12, 2021. The modified routine uses will be effective on March 12, 2021.
You may submit comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal,
The Bureau will post all comments received, including any personal information you provide, along with any attachments or other supporting disclosures, without change on the
For general questions, please contact Michael Hoover at 202-453-1039, ext. 135. For privacy issues, please contact Jackie Washington at 202-453-1039, ext. 019.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury” or the “Department”), Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), proposes to modify an existing Treasury system of records titled, “Treasury/TTB .001 Regulatory Enforcement Record System.” This is the only system of records adopted by TTB as of October 1, 2020.
TTB administers the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), as amended, at 26 U.S.C. chapter 51 (distilled spirits, wine, and beer), chapter 52 (tobacco products, processed tobacco, and cigarette papers and tubes), and sections 4181-4182 (firearms and ammunition excise taxes), and the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. chapter 8). Under its IRC authorities, TTB collects the Federal excise taxes levied on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition products and the special occupational taxes levied on certain tobacco industry members. Under these IRC and the FAA Act authorities, TTB also administers the Federal permit, registration, or notice requirements that apply to alcohol and tobacco industry members, as well the Federal requirements that apply to the production, labeling, and marketing of alcohol beverage products.
Under this system of records, TTB collects certain personal information from individuals who file tax returns with or submit return information to TTB regarding excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition, and from individuals who file special occupational tax returns or information. Also under this system of records, TTB collects certain personal information about individuals who are associated with operations and businesses that are the subject of permit applications, notices, or registrations under the IRC or FAA Act or activity undertaken under such permits, notices, or registrations. Such operations and businesses include alcohol and tobacco permittees; alcohol, tobacco, and firearms and ammunition excise taxpayers; special occupational taxpayers; claimants for refund, abatement, credit, allowance, or drawback of excise or special occupational taxes; and those filing offers in compromise.
While there are no significant changes to this system of records, TTB is modifying this system to make clarifying changes to conform to the latest guidance from the Department. Specifically:
• TTB is revising the system title to include the full name of the Department and Bureau, to read “Department of the Treasury, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) .001-Regulatory Enforcement System of Records.”
• TTB is revising the categories of records included in this system to clarify the types of personally identifiable information (PII) currently kept in the system, including names of individuals, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers (SSNs) (if collected), Employer Identification Numbers (EINs), and address and contact information.
• TTB is adding or revising several routine use descriptions for this system to clarify to whom and for what purpose TTB may provide information contained in this system. In particular, as required by OMB Memorandum M-17-12, “Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information,” dated January 3, 2017, TTB is updating the language used to describe the existing routine use for this system regarding sharing information with other Federal agencies or Federal entities to assist the Department and TTB in responding to a suspected or confirmed breach of this system or to prevent, minimize, or remedy the risk of harm from such a breach to regulated industry members, TTB, the Federal Government, or national security.
• Other minor changes made throughout the document are editorial in nature and include updates to the notice's format and correction of grammatical or typographic errors.
Federal law protects PII and other information contained in this system from disclosure. Specifically, 5 U.S.C. 552 prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of confidential commercial information obtained by the Federal Government from regulated businesses and individuals, and 26 U.S.C. 6103 prohibits disclosure of tax returns and related information unless disclosure is specifically authorized by that section.
This modified system will be included in Treasury's inventory of record systems. Treasury and TTB have provided a report of this system of records to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) and OMB Circular A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” dated December 23, 2016.
For the reasons set forth above in the preamble, TTB proposes to modify its system of records entitled “Treasury/TTB .001 Regulatory Enforcement Record System” as follows:
Department of the Treasury, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) .001-Regulatory Enforcement System of Records.
Unclassified.
TTB maintains the system records at its headquarters in Washington, DC, and at its National Revenue Center in Cincinnati, OH, located, respectively, at these addresses:
• Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20005; and
• Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, National Revenue Center, 550 Main Street, Suite 8002, Cincinnati, OH 45202.
In addition, components of this system also are geographically dispersed throughout TTB's field offices. A list of TTB's field offices and their addresses is available on the TTB website at
Assistant Administrator, Permitting and Taxation, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 550 Main Street, Suite 8002, Cincinnati, OH 45202.
5 U.S.C. 301; 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5006(a), 5008, 5041, 5042(a)(2) and (3), 5044, 5051, 5055, 5056, 5061, 5062, 5064, 5101, 5132, 5172, 5179(a), 5181, 5271(b)(1), 5275, 5301(a) and (b), 5312, 5356, 5401, 5417, 5502, 5511(3), 5705, 5712, 6001, 6011(a), 6201, 6423, 7011, and 7122; 27 U.S.C. 204 and 207; and section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d).
The purpose of this system is to administer the laws under TTB's jurisdiction, including determining eligibility or qualifications of individuals who are engaged or propose to engage in activities regulated by TTB; assure collection of the revenue due from regulated industry members; preventing improper trade practices in the beverage distilled spirits, malt beverage, and wine industries; and interact with Federal, State, and local governmental agencies in the resolution of problems relating to revenue protection and other areas of joint jurisdictional concern.
The categories of individuals covered by this system of records include:
(1) Individuals who file tax returns or submit return information to TTB regarding Federal excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition or tobacco industry-related special occupational taxes; and
(2) Individuals who have filed permit applications with or who have been issued permits by TTB; who have filed notices or registrations with TTB; and/or who are in certain positions of management or control of such regulated businesses, or have specified levels of ownership interest in such regulated businesses.
These individuals include alcohol and tobacco permittees, registrants, or notice holders; alcohol, tobacco, and firearms and ammunition excise taxpayers; special occupational taxpayers; claimants for refund, abatement, credit, allowance, or drawback of excise or special occupational taxes; and those filing offers in compromise.
This system includes records containing investigative material compiled to meet TTB's responsibilities under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, which may consist of the following:
• Names of individuals;
• Dates of birth;
• Social Security Numbers (SSN) (if collected);
• Telephone numbers;
• Email addresses;
• Mailing, home, and business premises addresses;
• Employer Identification Numbers (EIN);
• Abstracts of offers in compromise;
• Administrative law judge decisions;
• Assessment records including notices of proposed assessments, notices of shortages or losses, copies of notices from the Internal Revenue Service to assess taxes, and recommendations for assessments;
• Audit and investigation reports;
• Chief Counsel opinions and memoranda;
• Claim records including claims, letters of claim rejection, sample reports, supporting data, and vouchers and schedules of payment;
• Correspondence concerning records in this system and related matters;
• Demands for payment of excise tax liabilities;
• Financial statements;
• Letters of warning;
• Lists of permittees and licensees;
• Lists of officers, directors, and principal stockholders;
• Mailing lists;
• Notices of delinquent reports;
• Offers in compromise;
• Operational records, such as operating and inventory reports, and transaction records and reports;
• Orders of revocation, suspension, or annulment of permits, notices, registrations or licenses;
• Permits and permit histories;
• Reports of violations;
• Qualifying records including access authorizations, advertisement records, applications, business histories, criminal records, educational histories, employment histories, financial data, formula approvals, licenses, notices, permits, personal references, registrations, sample reports, special permissions and authorizations, and statements of process;
• Show cause orders; and
• Tax records relating to periodic payment and prepayment of taxes, tax returns, and notices of tax discrepancy or adjustment.
This system of records has been determined to be exempt from compliance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I) requiring the record source categories be reported.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), records and/or information or portions thereof maintained as part of this system may be disclosed outside Treasury as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(1) To a Federal, State, local, or foreign agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, which has requested information necessary or relevant to the requesting agency's official functions; including for the purpose of enforcing administrative, civil, or criminal laws; hiring or retention of an employee; issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter;
(2) To a Congressional office in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains;
(3) To a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that Congressional office made pursuant to a written Privacy Act waiver at the request of the individual to who the record pertains;
(4) To the National Archives and Records Administration (or the Archivist's designee) pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906;
(5) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) The Department of the Treasury and/or TTB suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department of the Treasury and/or TTB has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department of the Treasury and/or TTB (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department of the Treasury's and/or TTB's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm;
(6) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department of the Treasury and/or TTB determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach;
(7) To third parties when such disclosure is required by statute or Executive Order;
(8) To third parties to the extent necessary to collect or verify information pertinent to TTB's decision to grant, deny, or revoke a license or permit; to initiate or complete an investigation of violations or alleged violations of laws and regulations administered by TTB;
(9) To a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of or in preparation for civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations, in response to a subpoena where relevant or potentially relevant to a proceeding, or in connection with criminal law proceedings;
(10) To International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) and similar national and international intelligence gathering organizations for the purpose of identifying international and national criminals involved in consumer fraud, revenue evasion, crimes, or persons involved in terrorist activities;
(11) To foreign governments in accordance with formal or informal international agreements;
(12) To appropriate Federal, State, local, or foreign agencies responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, where the disclosing agency becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of criminal law or regulation;
(13) To third parties for a purpose consistent with any permissible disclosure of returns or return information under the IRC, as amended;
(14) To a contractor for the purpose of processing administrative records and/or compiling, organizing, analyzing, programming, or otherwise refining records subject to the same limitations applicable to Department of the Treasury officers and employees under the Privacy Act;
(15) To the Department of Justice when seeking legal advice or when (a) the Department of the Treasury or (b) the disclosing agency, or (c) any employee of the disclosing agency in his or her official capacity, or (d) any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee, or (e) the United States, where the disclosing agency determines that litigation is likely to affect the disclosing agency, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by the Department of Justice is deemed by the agency to be relevant and necessary to the litigation; and
(16) To the news media to provide information in accordance with guidelines contained in 28 CFR 50.2 that relate to an agency's functions relating to civil and criminal proceedings.
TTB maintains records in this system in a secure computer system that require the use of a personal identity verification (PIV) card and multi-digit personal identification number (PIN) to access, or on paper in secure facilities with controlled access.
Records may be retrieved by name, by permit or license number, by document locator number, or by Employer Identification Number (EIN).
TTB retains and disposes of records in the system in accordance with records disposition schedule DAA-0564-2013-0003, approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for TTB.
TTB safeguards records in this system in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable Treasury automated systems security and access policies. TTB has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Records stored on electronic media are protected by controlled access and are encrypted at rest in the system and when transmitted. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances.
This system of records has been determined to be exempt from compliance with the access provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(H). Also see “Notification Procedures” below.
This system of records has been determined to be exempt from compliance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(H) allowing an individual to contest the contents of records. Also see “Notification Procedures” below.
The Secretary of Treasury has exempted this system from the notification, access, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act because it is a law enforcement system. However, Treasury and TTB will consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released. Thus, individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may inquire in writing in accordance with instructions appearing at 31 CFR part 1, subpart C, Appendices A-N. Requests for information and specific guidance on where to send requests for records may be addressed to: Assistant Administrator, Permitting and Taxation, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 550 Main Street, Suite 8002, Cincinnati, OH 45202.
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in § 1.26 of 31 CFR part 1. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you should provide the following:
• An explanation of why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which bureau(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created;
• Provide any other information that will help the Bureau or FOIA staff determine which Treasury Bureau may have responsive records; and
• If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without this bulleted information, the Bureau(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
The Secretary of the Treasury has designated this system as exempt from the following provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2): 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f). See 31 CFR 1.36 as amended by the final rule published by the Department of the Treasury in the
Notice of this system of records was last published in full in the
(b) The Task Force shall complete its review within 120 days of the date of the appointment of its members, and shall take the following actions when completing its review.
(c) Within 120 days of the publication of the Task Force’s initial 120-day review of existing scientific-integrity policies, the Task Force shall develop a framework to inform and support the regular assessment and iterative improvement of agency scientific-integrity policies and practices, to support the Director and OSTP in ensuring that agencies adhere to the principles of scientific integrity. This framework shall include assessment criteria that OSTP and agencies can use to inform, review, and improve the design and implementation of agency scientific-integrity policies. The Director shall publish this framework on the OSTP website.
(b) Heads of agencies shall ensure that their agency scientific-integrity policies reflect the findings in the Task Force report produced under section (2)(b)(v) of this memorandum and apply to all agency employees, regardless of the nature of their appointment, as well as contractors who perform scientific activities for agencies. Heads of agencies shall coordinate with the Director in the development, updating, and implementation of any agency-specific policies or procedures deemed necessary to ensure the integrity of scientific decision-making. The following time frames shall apply when completing the activities described in this subsection:
(c) In implementing this section, heads of agencies shall:
(b) The Director shall publish on the OSTP website, and disseminate via social media, a biennial report on the status of the implementation of this memorandum across the executive branch. This report shall include a review of the impact on scientific integrity of diversity, equity, and inclusion practices related to the Federal scientific and engineering workforce and scientific Federal advisory committees.
(b) Within 120 days of the date of this memorandum, after consultation with the Director, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall issue guidance to improve agencies’ evidence-building plans and annual evaluation plans. Specifically, the Director of OMB shall consider whether, consistent with, and building upon, Executive Order 13707 of September 15, 2015 (Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People), agencies’ evidence-building plans and annual evaluation plans shall include a broad set of methodological approaches for the evidence-based and iterative development and the equitable delivery of policies, programs, and agency operations. Relevant approaches might include use of pilot projects, randomized control trials, quantitative-survey research and statistical analysis, qualitative research, ethnography, research based on data linkages in which records from two or more datasets that refer to the same entity are joined, well-established processes for community engagement and inclusion in research, and other approaches that may be informed by the social and behavioral sciences and data science.
(c) The statutory positions required to be designated by agencies by the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-435), which include the Evaluation Officer, the Chief Data Officer, and a senior statistical official, shall incorporate scientific-integrity principles consistent with this memorandum into agencies’ data governance and evaluation approaches. Similarly, the Chief Data Officers Council shall incorporate scientific-integrity principles consistent with this memorandum into its efforts to establish government-wide best practices for the use, protection, dissemination, and generation of data, and both the Chief Data Officers Council and the Evaluation Officer Council shall identify ways in which agencies can improve upon the production of evidence for use in policymaking.
(d) Consistent with the provisions of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, heads of agencies shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, expand open and secure access to Federal data routinely collected in the course of administering Federal, State, local, Tribal, or territorial government programs or fulfilling Federal, State, local, Tribal, or territorial government mandates, such as tax data, vital records, other statistical data, and Social Security Administration earnings and employment reports, to ensure governmental and non-governmental researchers can use Federal data to assess and evaluate the effectiveness and equitable delivery of policies and to suggest improvements. In implementing this provision, heads of agencies shall:
(e) The Director of OMB shall review whether guidance to agencies on implementation of the Information Quality Act needs to be updated and reissued.
(f) Heads of agencies shall review and expeditiously update any agency policies, processes, and practices issued or published since January 20, 2017, that prevent the best available science and data from informing the agency’s evidence-based and iterative development and equitable delivery of policies and programs.
(b) Because science, facts, and evidence are vital to addressing policy and programmatic issues across the Federal Government, the heads of all agencies (not only those that fund, conduct, or oversee scientific research) shall designate expeditiously a senior career employee as the agency’s lead scientific-integrity official (“Scientific Integrity Official”) to oversee implementation and iterative improvement of scientific-integrity policies and processes consistent with the provisions of this memorandum, including implementation of the administrative and dispute resolution processes described in section (3)(c)(iii) of this memorandum. For agencies with a Chief Science Officer, the Scientific Integrity Official shall report to the Chief Science Officer on all matters involving scientific-integrity policies.
(c) To the extent necessary to fully implement the provisions of this memorandum, heads of agencies may designate additional scientific-integrity points of contact in different offices and components, who shall coordinate with the agency’s Scientific Integrity Official in implementing the agency’s scientific-integrity policies and processes.
(d) Heads of agencies should ensure those designated to serve in the roles described in this section, along with their respective staffs, are selected based on their scientific and technological knowledge, skills, experience, and integrity, including experience conducting and overseeing scientific research and utilizing scientific and technological information and data in agency decision-making, prioritizing experience with evidence-based, equitable, inclusive, and participatory practices and structures for the conduct of scientific research and the communication of scientific results.
(e) The Director or a designee of the Director shall regularly convene Chief Science Officers and Scientific Integrity Officials to encourage the discussion and expansion of effective scientific-integrity policies and practices among agencies.
(b) This review shall assess which Federal scientific and technological advisory committees should be rechartered or recreated to ensure that relevant and highly qualified external experts, with proper safeguards against conflicts of interest, can contribute to critical Federal regulations and other agency actions and decision-making. The review shall also identify any agency policies, processes, or practices that may currently prevent or inhibit relevant and highly qualified external experts from serving on such committees.
(c) In conducting this review, heads of agencies shall take steps to review the membership of scientific and technological advisory committees and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, ensure that members and future nominees reflect the diversity of America in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, geography, and other characteristics; represent a variety of backgrounds, areas of expertise, and experiences; provide well-rounded and expert advice to agencies; and are selected based on their scientific and technological knowledge, skills, experience, and integrity, including prioritization of experience with evidence-based, equitable, inclusive, and participatory practices and structures for the conduct of scientific research and the communication of scientific results.
(d) Upon completion of their 90-day review, heads of agencies shall provide a summary report to the Director and the Director of OMB with recommendations on which Federal scientific and technological advisory committees should be rechartered or recreated in accordance with subsection (b) of this section; which scientific and technological advisory committees should be prioritized for membership appointments to ensure they provide well-rounded and expert advice reflecting diverse perspectives, in accordance with subsection (c) of this section; and which agency policies, processes, or practices, if any, should be updated to encourage relevant and highly qualified external experts to serve on such committees.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.