Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
National Institutes of Health
Public Health Service
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Interim final rule with request for comments.
To mitigate transition costs on credit unions related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 Pandemic), the NCUA Board (Board) is issuing this temporary interim final rule to permit federally insured credit unions (FICUs) to use asset data as of March 31, 2020, in order to determine the applicability of certain regulatory asset thresholds during calendar years 2021 and 2022. Specifically, the interim final rule allows a FICU to use March 31, 2020, financial data when determining whether the institution is subject to capital planning and stress testing requirements under the NCUA's regulations and supervision from the Office of National Examinations and Supervision.
This rule is effective on March 23, 2021, except for amendatory instruction 4, which is effective January 1, 2022. Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2021.
You may submit written comments, identified by RIN 3133-AF36, by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
Yvonne Applonie, Director of Supervision, Office of National Examinations and Supervision; or Rachel Ackmann, Senior Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428. Yvonne Applonie can also be reached at (703) 518-6595, and Rachel Ackmann can be reached at (703) 548-2601.
In light of strains in economic conditions related to the COVID-19 Pandemic and stress in U.S. financial markets, the NCUA has taken a number of actions intended to: (i) Restore market functioning and support the flow of credit to households, businesses, and communities and (ii) increase flexibility and tailor regulations.
Among those actions, the NCUA has issued a number of rules and supervisory guidance communications designed to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic, to facilitate the safe and effective operations of FICUs and to protect credit union members.
The unprecedented balance sheet growth is largely a result of individual member response to actions taken by monetary and fiscal authorities. At the start of the COVID-19 Pandemic, consumer spending decreased as individual states or major metropolitan areas ordered millions of Americans to stay home. Additionally, market volatility pushed savers with money in financial markets to safer assets, including insured shares. Fiscal stimulus applied additional upward pressure on FICU balance sheets. For example, as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), the U.S. government provided over $1 trillion in direct support to consumers and businesses through business loans, expanded unemployment insurance, and direct checks to individuals.
FICUs are subject to regulatory requirements predicated on their risk profile and asset size.
Additionally, the Board does not believe that the balance sheet growth related to the COVID-19 Pandemic has significantly increased the general risk profile of the affected FICUs. As discussed previously, FICUs' growth is largely due to the extraordinary growth in insured shares held by FICUs. Therefore, the Board feels it prudent to offer FICUs relief with respect to certain regulatory requirements being triggered by the unprecedented balance sheet growth.
On December 2, 2020, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System published a related interim final rule to mitigate temporary transition costs on banking organizations with under $10 billion in total assets as of December 31, 2019, related to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
The Board is issuing this interim final rule pursuant to its authority under the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act).
Part 702, subpart E, of the NCUA's regulations (part 702) contains asset-based thresholds that determine whether a FICU is required to comply with capital planning and stress testing requirements.
As discussed previously, many FICUs have experienced an unexpected and sharp increase in their balance sheets since the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic. This unexpected and rapid growth has caused the assets of certain FICUs to rise above asset-based thresholds in part 702 and may cause other FICUs to do so soon. In addition, much of this growth is the result of actions taken by monetary and fiscal authorities, and by individual members in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic and generally does not reflect any immediate change in the organization's longer-term risk profile.
In the absence of regulatory change, FICUs that experience an increase in assets above one or more thresholds in part 702 would face additional transition costs necessary to comply with the new or more stringent regulatory standards they have not accounted for in 2021 strategic financial plans and budgets. Given the rapid and unexpected nature of FICU asset growth in 2020, many FICUs are unlikely to have planned for these transition costs.
Therefore, the Board believes it is appropriate to provide temporary regulatory relief to FICUs that have risen above, or will rise above, the asset-based thresholds in part 702. The relief should permit a covered FICU to either delay for one year transition costs that it would otherwise be subject to immediately, to comply with the new standards or an additional year to reduce its total assets to below the applicable asset-based threshold. In order to provide this relief, the Board is issuing this interim final rule to temporarily change the date as of when a FICU measures its assets for the purpose of the capital planning and stress testing requirement.
Part 702 applies capital planning and stress testing requirements to “covered credit unions.” A FICU is defined as a covered credit union, and subject to capital planning and stress testing requirements, if it has $10 billion or more in total assets.
• A tier I credit union is a covered credit union that has less than $15 billion in total assets;
• A tier II credit union is a covered credit union that has $15 billion or more in total assets, but less than $20 billion in total assets, or is otherwise designated as a tier II credit union by the NCUA; and
• A tier III credit union is a covered credit union that has $20 billion or more in total assets, or is otherwise designated as a tier III credit union by the NCUA.
Part 702 applies the asset thresholds for each tier based on a FICU's asset size on March 31 each year (measurement date). Under the current rule, if a FICU crosses any of the tier I, II, or III asset thresholds on March 31, then the FICU's new classification is effective on January 1 of the next year. Accordingly, a FICU's calendar year 2021 capital planning and stress testing requirements were determined by its total assets as of March 31, 2020 and were effective January 1, 2021. If a FICU had $10 billion or more in total assets as of March 31, 2020, it must complete a capital plan in calendar year 2021. And, if a covered credit union had $15 billion in assets on March 31, 2020, it must conduct a stress test in calendar year 2021.
As discussed previously, the interim final rule temporarily amends the measurement date used to determine whether a FICU crosses any of the tier I, II, or III asset thresholds for capital planning and stress testing requirements in calendar year 2022. Under the interim final rule, a FICU will use its assets reported as of March 31, 2020, instead of March 31, 2021, to determine its applicable asset thresholds for
Therefore, if a FICU had substantial asset growth during the latter half of 2020 and has $10 billion or more in assets on March 31, 2021, but had less than $10 billion in assets on March 31, 2020, the FICU does not meet the definition of a covered credit union and will not be designated as a tier I credit union subject to capital planning requirements on January 1, 2022. If a FICU had $10 billion or more in total assets on March 31, 2020, however, it must complete a capital plan this year (for calendar year 2021). And, if a covered credit union has $15 billion in assets on March 31, 2021, but had less than $15 billion on March 31, 2020, it is not required to conduct a stress test in calendar year 2022. Similarly, a covered credit union is not designated as a tier III covered credit union based on its total assets as of March 31, 2021.
Accordingly, a FICU would not be newly designated as a tier I, II, or III covered credit union until March 31, 2022, and such designation will not be effective until January 1, 2023. This temporary regulatory relief reflects that much of the balance sheet growth since the start of the COVID-19 Pandemic, especially growth related to member deposits, does not generally reflect changes in FICUs' risk profiles and was unexpected by the FICU. Based on this analysis, the Board finds that this temporary change will not undermine the purpose behind the capital planning and stress testing requirements and will permit FICUs an additional year to either reduce their total assets to under the applicable asset-size threshold or prepare for compliance with capital planning and stress testing requirements.
As discussed, the interim final rule also makes a conforming change to the measurement date for determining oversight by ONES. Currently, ONES oversees FICUs with $10 billion or more in assets. Similar to the measurement date for capital planning and stress testing requirements, FICUs reporting assets of $10 billion or more on March 31 each year will be reassigned to ONES on January 1 of the following year. Under the interim final rule, the NCUA will use financial data as of March 31, 2020, instead of March 31, 2021, to determine the supervision of natural person credit unions for calendar year 2022.
The interim final rule also makes conforming amendments to other NCUA regulations that refer to supervision by ONES. These changes replace specific references to the $10 billion asset threshold with cross-references to the threshold, as temporarily modified, in part 702.
The temporary regulatory relief described previously is generally available to FICUs that otherwise would have crossed the tier I, II, or III thresholds in part 702 or become subject to ONES supervision. However, there may be limited instances in which such regulatory relief would be inappropriate. To address such situations, the Board may use existing reservations of authority in part 702 to designate a FICU as subject to ONES supervision or a tier I, II, or III credit union. When making any such determination, the Board would consider all relevant factors affecting the FICU's safety and soundness, including, but not limited to, the extent of asset growth of the FICU since March 31, 2020; the causes of such growth, including whether growth occurred as a result of mergers or purchase and assumption transactions; whether such growth is likely to be temporary or permanent; whether the FICU has become involved in any additional activities since March 31, 2020, and, if so, the risk of such activities; and the type of assets held by the FICU. In particular, as noted in the preceding sentence, the NCUA will consider whether the FICU crossed the threshold due to a merger or purchase and assumption transaction that significantly increases the FICU's asset size. Asset growth that occurs as a result of a merger or purchase and assumption transaction is planned, unlike the growth that many FICUs have experienced since the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic. FICUs crossing a regulatory threshold as a result of a merger or purchase and assumption transaction therefore have had the opportunity to plan and prepare for the change in regulatory requirements. The Board notes that it may designate a FICU as a tier I, II, or III credit union even in the absence of a merger or purchase and assumption transaction, as significant asset growth at a FICU may reflect a material change in the business model, risk profile, or complexity of the FICU. Nonetheless, the NCUA expects to apply the reservation of authority only in limited circumstances.
The Board seeks comment on all aspects of this interim final rule. In particular, the Boards seeks comment on the duration of the temporary regulatory relief and on the advantages and disadvantages of using an alternative measurement date. Commenters are invited to describe other dates and the advantages and disadvantages of any such dates.
The Board is issuing this interim final rule without prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the delayed effective date ordinarily prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the APA, general notice and the opportunity for public comment are not required with respect to a rulemaking when an “agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
The Board believes that the public interest is best served by implementing the interim final rule immediately upon publication in the
The Board believes that the public interest is best served by making the interim final rule effective immediately upon publication in the
The APA also requires a 30-day delayed effective date, except for: (1) Substantive rules which grant or recognize an exemption or relieve a restriction; (2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause. Because the rules relieve a restriction, the interim final rule is exempt from the APA's delayed effective date requirement. The reasons previously discussed for forgoing prior notice and comment would also separately justify this determination.
While the Board believes that there is good cause to issue the rule without advance notice and comment and with an immediate effective date, the Board is interested in the views of the public and requests comment on all aspects of the interim final rule.
For purposes of the Congressional Review Act, the OMB makes a determination as to whether a final rule constitutes a “major” rule. If a rule is deemed a “major rule” by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Congressional Review Act generally provides that the rule may not take effect until at least 60 days following its publication.
The Congressional Review Act defines a “major rule” as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the OMB finds has resulted in or is likely to result in (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies or geographic regions, or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
For the same reasons set forth above, the Board is adopting this interim final rule without the delayed effective date generally prescribed under the Congressional Review Act. The delayed effective date required by the Congressional Review Act does not apply to any rule for which an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
As required by the Congressional Review Act, the Board will submit the final rule and other appropriate reports to Congress and the Government Accountability Office for review.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement, referred to as an information collection. The interim final rule will not affect any existing or impose any new information collection requirements.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. The NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles.
This interim final rule does not have substantial interim effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The NCUA has therefore determined that this rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
The NCUA has determined that this rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that when an agency issues a proposed rule or a final rule pursuant to the APA or another law, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis that meets the requirements of the RFA and publish such analysis in the
Rules that are exempt from notice and comment are also exempt from the RFA requirements, including conducting a regulatory flexibility analysis, when among other things the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR parts 700, 702, 708a, 708b, and 790 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1752, 1757(6), 1766.
12 U.S.C. 1766(a), 1790d.
(c) * * * Subpart C applies capital planning and stress testing to credit unions defined as covered credit unions under § 702.302. * * *
(a)
(1)
(2)
12 U.S.C. 1766, 1785(b), and 1785(c).
12 U.S.C. 1752(7), 1766, 1785, 1786, 1789.
12 U.S.C. 1766, 1789, 1795f.
(c)
(2) * * * Similar to a Regional Director, the Director of the Office of National Examinations and Supervision manages NCUA's supervisory program over credit unions; however, it oversees the activities for corporate credit unions and of natural person credit unions defined as covered credit unions under part 702 of this chapter, in accordance with established policies. * * *
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Central Colorado Regional Airport, Buena Vista, CO. This action modifies the airspace to properly contain instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft departing and arriving at the airport. Additionally, this action removes the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This airspace is wholly contained within the Denver en route airspace area and duplication is not necessary. Lastly, this action implements an administrative update to the airport's name.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 17, 2021. The Director of the Federal
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3695.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace at Central Colorado Regional Airport, Buena Vista, CO, to ensure the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Central Colorado Regional Airport, Buena Vista, CO. This airspace is designed to contain IFR departures to 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the surface. The circular radius of the airport is larger than required, and the airspace does not properly contain IFR departures and aircraft performing an Area Navigation Runway 33 approach. This action reduces the circular radius from 4.7 miles to 3.5 miles, and adds an area south of the airport.
Additionally, this action removes the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This airspace area is wholly contained in the Denver en route airspace area and duplication is not necessary.
Lastly, the action implements an administrative update to the airport's name. To match the FAA database, the airport name is updated to Central Colorado Regional Airport.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 160° bearing from the airport, extending from the 3.5-mile radius to 8.7 miles south of Central Colorado Regional Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action revokes the Class E airspace established for Bedard Field Airport, Kayenta, AZ. The special instrument procedures that were developed for the private airport have been canceled. The Class E airspace is no longer required.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 17, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3695.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it revokes the Class E airspace at Bedard Field Airport, Kayenta, AZ, as IFR operations are no longer conducted at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revokes the Class E airspace established for Bedard Field Airport, Kayenta, AZ. The special instrument procedures that were developed for the private airport have been canceled. The Class E airspace is no longer required. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notification of effective date of final rule; technical amendment.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is providing notice that the final rule published on January 19, 2021 to expand Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS) is effective on March 22, 2021. NOAA is also amending the FGBNMS regulations to reflect the effective date.
The final rule to expand Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, which was published at 86 FR 4937 on January 19, 2021, is effective on March 22, 2021. The technical amendment in this document is effective on March 22, 2021.
George P. Schmahl, Superintendent, Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, 4700 Avenue U, Building 216, Galveston, Texas 77551, at 409-356-0383, or
Pursuant to Section 304(b) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)), NOAA published the designation and final regulations to implement the expansion of FGBNMS published on January 19, 2021 (86 FR 4937). As required by the NMSA, the designation and regulations would become effective following the close of a review period of 45 days of continuous session of Congress beginning on the date of publication. Moreover, a Presidential Memorandum issued on January 20, 2021 required agencies to consider a 60-day postponement in new regulations. Accordingly, NOAA announces the designation and the final regulations to implement the expansion of FGBNMS is effective on March 22, 2021. With this document, NOAA is also amending the FGBNMS regulations at § 922.122 (e)(1) to update and reflect the effective date of March 22, 2021.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, NOAA amends part 922, title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1431
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule; delay of effective date and correction.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or Department) is postponing, pending judicial review, the effective date of a final rule entitled “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely” (SUNSET final rule) and published in the
As of March 19, 2021, the effective date of the final rule published January 19, 2021 (86 FR 5694), is delayed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 705 for one year until March 22, 2022.
This correction is effective as of March 22, 2022, and amendatory instruction #10 in FR 2021-00597 (86 FR 5694), published on January 19, 2021, is corrected.
Daniel J. Barry, Acting General Counsel, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201; or by email at
The SUNSET final rule was scheduled to take effect on March 22, 2021. On March 9, 2021, a lawsuit was filed seeking to overturn the SUNSET final rule. HHS finds that the interests of justice require that the SUNSET final rule's effective date be postponed pending judicial review because: Based on HHS's initial review of the Complaint, HHS believes that the Court could find merit in some of Plaintiffs' claims; Plaintiffs' allegations of harm are credible; a postponement will permit HHS to review the SUNSET final rule in light of the claims raised in the litigation; and the balance of equities and the public interest warrant postponement of the effective date to preserve the status quo while the Court considers the challenge to the SUNSET final rule. This document also corrects certain errors in the SUNSET final rule.
In the
In the
In the
On March 9, 2021, the County of Santa Clara, California Tribal Families Coalition, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, American Lung Association, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Natural Resources Defense Council sued the Department seeking to overturn the SUNSET final rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Complaint,
Under 5 U.S.C. 705 of the APA, an agency “may postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review,” when the “agency finds that justice so requires.” HHS has concluded that the interests of justice require that the SUNSET final rule be stayed pending judicial review. As discussed in greater detail below, HHS believes that the Court may find merit in some of Plaintiffs' claims, that Plaintiffs' allegations of harm are credible, and that the balance of equities and the public interest warrant postponement of the effective date pending judicial review. Accordingly, the interests of justice require a postponement in order to preserve the status quo, because, if the rule took effect while HHS was evaluating the rule in light of the claims raised in litigation, it could create significant obligations for HHS, cause confusion for the public, including Plaintiffs, and may lead to compliance costs as entities, including Plaintiffs, plan steps necessary to deal with the rule's implementation, as explained below. HHS is unaware of any benefits from the implementation of the SUNSET final rule that would be significantly curtailed from a stay of its effective date.
The Department is taking a fresh and critical look at the SUNSET final rule in light of the allegations in the Complaint (although many of these concerns were also raised during the comment period on the proposed rule). The Complaint alleges serious legal vulnerabilities of the rule, and, while HHS does not concede any of these claims at this time, HHS requires additional time to evaluate the SUNSET final rule given the pending litigation. In addition, the Complaint raises the question as to whether the SUNSET final rule, issued in the final days of the last administration, is consistent with the policies and goals of the current administration, both in terms of the appropriate role of regulatory oversight of the health care industry and necessary engagement with the public, including tribal organizations.
The Complaint makes numerous allegations that the substantive provisions of SUNSET final rule violate the law. The Complaint alleges that the SUNSET final rule is contrary to and
Given the volume of HHS agency regulations that the Department would need to assess and, as applicable, review in a short period of time, HHS now believes it is likely some regulations would expire without any additional administrative process (contrary to the conclusions reached in the SUNSET final rule). Under the SUNSET final rule, for each covered regulation, HHS agencies would need to: Collect data to conduct the relevant evaluation, perform an assessment and possibly a review, consider any comments to the public docket related to the evaluation, publish the results of this process in the
That outcome could raise interrelated administrative law questions regarding: Whether regulations promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking can be terminated through an umbrella rule without individualized consideration of the expiring regulations, including any reliance interests of parties affected by them; and, if so, whether the proposed/final rule provided an adequate justification for implementing a process of automatic expiration.
The expiration component of the SUNSET final rule also raises significant policy and public health questions concerning the value of the assessment and review processes and whether those processes are so important that they outweigh the value of the regulations that would likely expire.
The potential automatic expiration of regulatory programs could create uncertainty and unpredictability regarding large swathes of the rules governing health care, which would upend the status quo and in turn could result in compliance costs to HHS grantees, contractors, and health care providers and suppliers, many of whom may have structured matters such as financial arrangements and business operations to satisfy the conditions set forth in the current regulations. The resulting disruption in the marketplace could impact stakeholders who rely on the regulatory functions of each HHS agency. This uncertainty could have serious implications for insurance markets, hospitals, physicians, and patients, among other affected parties, which could lead physicians and other regulated entities to forgo future investments because of the lack of clarity. In addition, because States depend on HHS to set national standards and have built vast regulatory systems within that framework, the possibility that many regulations would lapse could pose a direct threat to the States' healthcare systems and the health and safety of individuals. The expiration of regulations could also muddle the clarity and predictability of existing regulations, which in turn would impede program implementation and reduce HHS's overall efficiency.
HHS is similarly concerned that the SUNSET final rule may have significantly underestimated the burden of the assessments and reviews for this magnitude of regulations and fails to account for the substantial resources that would be needed for the HHS agencies to simultaneously evaluate thousands of regulations in a short period of time. For example, the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) included in the final rule appears to focus on the number of staff and staff hours required for “reviews,” but provides an incomplete estimate for the cost of the initial “assessment” phase. That raises questions regarding whether the RIA significantly underestimated the costs that will be incurred by agencies and overestimates the purported cost savings. Currently, there is no accurate impact analysis of the substantial redirection of resources (both financial and employee) required to provide the necessary expertise and input from economists, epidemiologists, medical officers, legal and regulatory counsel, and other subject matter experts.
The Complaint also alleges that the promulgation of the SUNSET final rule suffered from procedural deficiencies. Plaintiffs allege that, despite widespread requests for more time, HHS issued the SUNSET final rule after providing 30 days to comment on the rule's effect on non-Medicare regulations and 60 days to comment on its effects on Medicare regulations, seriously interfering with meaningful public participation. The comments likewise raised concerns about the adequacy of the comment period for a rule with this magnitude of impact and the timing of the proposal, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, both of which may have impeded the full and deliberate consideration of all of the potential issues related to the SUNSET rule. For example, at the Public Hearing, almost all commenters agreed that HHS should have lengthened the comment period, and offered several reasons in support of a longer comment period, all of which were expressed by multiple commenters: That a proposal with this breadth, scope, and potential harmful impact, including unintended detrimental consequences to regulated industries, merited more time for thoughtful public input; that impacted stakeholders included small businesses that would not be able to digest and comment on a rule of this breadth in such a short period of time; that it was irresponsible for HHS to engage in this rulemaking during the height of the pandemic when stakeholder resources were devoted to addressing the public health emergency; and that the already short comment period included Thanksgiving weekend, which exacerbated the time-crunch for commenters.
The Complaint also alleges that, despite the SUNSET final rule's sweeping scope and tribal implications, the Department neglected to consult
In publishing the SUNSET final rule, the Department previously took the position that the rule complies with the APA and that the comment period was adequate, among other things. The Department's conclusions rested on certain assumptions that the Complaint challenges. For example, the Department expressed a view that it has the resources to complete assessments and reviews and avoid expiration, thus avoiding many of the legal concerns related to automatic repeal of regulations. See,
In addition, the Department previously took the view that a 30-day comment period was adequate. However, the Complaint challenges the sufficiency of a 30-day comment period for complex rules, Complaint, ¶ 54, and the SUNSET rule's unique breadth, affecting an extraordinarily large number of regulations, could add force to such claims. The Department also took the view that the lack of tribal consultation was mitigated by the fact that Tribes will be able to comment on regulations during the Assessment and Review processes, 86 FR at 5711, but, as noted above, HHS is reconsidering that conclusion in light of the claims raised in the Complaint.
The Complaint also alleges that Plaintiffs and others are immediately harmed by the SUNSET final rule. The Complaint alleges that the uncertainty resulting from its implementation impacts the entire healthcare sector, which accounts for nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy and secures individual and community health for hundreds of millions of Americans, and that participants in every single industry the Department regulates, including Plaintiffs, must plan their futures and operations without knowing what regulations will govern their businesses in these notoriously complex regulatory arenas.
In addition, given the scope of work and timeframes set forth in the SUNSET final rule, the review required under the rule would divert the Department's resources from mission-critical endeavors for HHS agencies. For example, based on a count cited in the SUNSET final rule, under the timeline and definitions provided in the final rule, over 7,000 sections of the Code of Federal Regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are more than ten years old or would become more than ten years old during the first five years the rule would be in effect, representing over 95 percent of its current regulations. Unless one of the exemptions applied, these regulations would need to be assessed within five years and, if applicable, reviewed, or be subject to expiration. If the SUNSET final rule were to become effective as scheduled on March 22, 2021, then, in order to meet these new obligations within the specified timeframe to avoid automatic expiration of its regulations, FDA and the Department would need to immediately divert resources toward assessment and review during the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency. In that event, FDA's reviews of medical product applications, fulfillment of user fee commitments, and actions to address urgent public health matters such as ongoing COVID-19 pandemic relief efforts, outbreaks of foodborne illness, inspections, recalls, and other public health priorities would be significantly impacted. This concentration of resources in conducting regulatory review pursuant to the SUNSET rule could prevent FDA from modernizing its regulatory oversight more efficiently and addressing new regulatory needs. These considerations further support HHS's determination that justice requires a postponement of the SUNSET final rule's effective date.
The SUNSET final rule presents similar burdens for HHS's seven other Public Health Service agencies and three human services agencies, such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), with implications for
Because of these public health concerns, and the harms alleged by the Plaintiffs and echoed in the comments, the balance of equities and the public interest favor the issuance of a stay of the effective date of the SUNSET final rule to preserve the status quo and allow for judicial review of its legality before any implementation.
Accordingly, HHS is issuing this stay of the effective date of this final rule pending judicial review. This postponement applies to all of the regulations established under the SUNSET final rule. As noted above, the Complaint alleges that the SUNSET final rule suffers from a variety of defects, including procedural defects related to its promulgation. The Department believes it is appropriate to review the entire rule in light of the claims raised in the litigation. Thus, this postponement reaches the full rule, consistent with the Complaint's prayer for relief.
Separately, this document addresses and corrects several technical errors identified by the Office of the Federal Register in the SUNSET final rule.
In FR 2021-00597 (86 FR 5694), published on January 19, 2021, the following corrections are made:
1. On page 5694, first column, the list of CFR citations in the heading under “Administration for Children and Families” that reads “45 CFR parts 200, 300, 403, 1010, and 1390” is corrected to read “45 CFR parts 200, 300, 403, 1010, and 1300.”
2. On page 5751, first column, the reference to “45 CFR part 1390” in the List of Subjects is corrected to read “45 CFR part 1300.”
Department of the Army, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning policies for the command and control of the United States Military Academy (USMA), the United States Military Academy Preparatory School (USMAPS), and the West Point Military Reservation. This part applies to organizational entities and members within the DoD. Therefore, this part can be removed from the CFR.
This rule is effective on March 23, 2021.
LTC Mark Rea at 703-695-9262.
This rule was last updated on March 2, 1979 (44 FR 11781). It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures. This rule is redundant in that it established policy, assigned responsibilities, and prescribed procedures for members of DoD on the operation and oversight of the Military Service Academies. These internal policies and procedures are publicly available on the Department's issuance website.
DoD internal policies and guidance are current and reflective of requirements in statute, and will continue to be published in Army Regulation 150-1, “United States Military Academy Organization, Administration, and Operation” (available at
This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
Military academies, Military personnel.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of expired temporary rules issued.
This document provides notification of substantive rules issued
This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became effective, primarily between April 2020 and June 2020, unless otherwise indicated, and were terminated before they could be published in the
Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions on this document contact Yeoman First Class Glenn Grayer, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, telephone (202) 372-3862.
Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations.
Timely publication of these rules in the
The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between April 2020 and June 2020 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is changing the operating schedule that governs the Seaboard Systems Railroad Bridge across the Little Manatee River, mile 2.4, in Ruskin, Hillsborough County, FL. This rule updates the name of the swing bridge and allow the swing bridge to be operated remotely. The draw is maintained in the closed position and will open with a three hour notice to the remote bridge tender.
This rule is effective April 22, 2021.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Clark W. Sanford with Coast Guard Sector St Petersburg Florida, Waterways Office; telephone 813-228-2191 x8105, email
On October 20, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Little Manatee River, Ruskin, Hillsborough County, FL” in the
The bridge owner, CSX Transportation, requested the Coast Guard consider allowing remote operation of the Seaboard System Railroad Bridge across the Little Manatee River, mile 2.4, in Ruskin, Hillsborough County, Florida. The Seaboard System Railroad Bridge across the Little Manatee River, mile 2.4, in Ruskin, Hillsborough County, FL is a swing bridge. The bridge is currently maintained in the closed position with a three hour advance notification for an opening. It has a vertical clearance of 5 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 35 feet.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the Seaboard System Railroad Bridge across the Little Manatee River, mile 2.4, in Ruskin, Hillsborough County, FL. The bridge is currently unmanned and maintained in the closed position.
The bridge owner provided one comment. CSX requested the wording regarding the detection sensors be modified. The detection sensors will not detect approaching vessels but vessels that are within the radius of the swing span of the bridge. This change was made to the regulatory text in paragraph (c).
This rule allows the bridge to be remotely monitored and operated. Visual monitoring of the waterway shall be maintained with the use of cameras and the detection of vessels approaching the span shall be accomplished with detection sensors. Marine radio communication shall be maintained with mariners near the bridge for the safety of navigation. The remote tender may also be contacted via telephone at (813) 677-3974. The span is normally in the fully closed position and will display red lights to indicate that the span is fully closed. This rule would allow vessels to pass through the bridge while taking into account the reasonable needs of other modes of transportation.
The Coast Guard has developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice. Vessels that can transit under the bridge without an opening may do so at any time.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The draw for the CSX Railroad Bridge, mile 2.4 near Ruskin, FL, shall operate as follows:
(a) The bridge is normally maintained in the closed position.
(b) The bridge is not tendered locally, but will be monitored and operated by a remote bridge tender.
(c) Marine radio communication shall be maintained, by the remote bridge tender, with mariners near the bridge for the safety of navigation. Visual monitoring of the waterway shall be maintained with the use of cameras. Detection sensors shall be installed for the detection of vessels within the radius of the swing span of the bridge.
(d) The draw must open on signal if at least three hours advance notice is requested via marine radio channel 9 VHF or telephone (813) 677-3974.
(e) The bridge shall not be operated from the remote location in the following events: Failure or obstruction of the detection sensors, cameras, or marine radio communications. In these situations, a bridge tender must be on-site and locally operate the bridge.
Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, DOT.
Final rule.
The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the GLS is amending the joint regulations by updating the Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Interpretations; Condition of Vessels; Seaway Navigation; Dangerous Cargo; and Schedule II. These changes are to clarify existing requirements in the regulations. In addition, Congress renamed the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) as the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS) as part of the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law on December 27, 2020. The joint regulations are being amended to reflect the name change.
This rule is effective on March 24, 2021.
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, New York 13662; 315/764-3200.
The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the GLS is amending the joint regulations by updating the Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Interpretations; Condition of Vessels; Seaway Navigation; Dangerous Cargo; and Schedule II. These changes are to clarify existing requirements in the regulations. In addition, Congress renamed the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) as Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS) as part of the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Section 512 of Division AA of Pub. L. 116-260), signed into law on December 27, 2020. The joint regulations are being amended to reflect the name change.
The joint regulations will become effective in Canada on March 24, 2021. For consistency, because these are joint regulations under international agreement, and to avoid confusion among users of the Seaway, the GLS finds that there is good cause to make the U.S. version of the amendments effective on the same date.
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore, Executive Order 12866 does not apply and evaluation under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures is not required.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules primarily relate to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of whom are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.
This regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321,
The Corporation has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and has determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment.
The Corporation has analyzed this rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) and determined that it does not impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector requiring a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives.
This regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review.
Hazardous materials transportation, Navigation (water), Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.
Accordingly, the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 981, amends Chapter IV of title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
33 U.S.C. 983(a) and 984(a) (4), as amended; 49 CFR 1.101, unless otherwise noted.
(a)
(c) Every vessel shall be equipped with operational anchor(s) suitably rigged for immediate release, holding, and retrieval. Every vessel shall be responsible for locating and retrieving any anchor deployed by the vessel and shall do so in a timely manner so as not to delay transit of vessels.
(b) * * *
(6) Computation of AIS position reports using differential GPS corrections from Canadian Coast Guard's maritime Differential Global Position System (DGPS) radio beacon services or Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS); or
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) An operational AIS with accuracy approved by the Seaway; and
(g) If a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) on a hazardous cargo that a vessel is carrying
Issued at Washington, DC, under authority delegated at 49 CFR part 1.101—Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends the regulation governing use of service department records as new evidence to remove the words “Joint Services Record Research Center.” This change is necessary because the U.S. Department of Army, Records Management and Declassification Agency (RMDA) has realigned its records research activities and the Joint Services Record Research Center (JSRRC) no longer exists.
This final rule is effective March 23, 2021.
Robert Parks, Chief, Part 3 Regulations Staff (211D) Compensation Service (21C), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9450. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)
The purpose of this amendment is make a technical change to VA regulations, without substantive effect, by removing reference to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) in title 38, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), § 3.156(c)(2). The U.S. Department of Army, Records Management and Declassification Agency (RMDA) has realigned its records research activities and the Joint Services Record Research Center (JSRRC) no longer exisits. The JSRRC was a research office that provided support to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), acting as an intermediary to conduct multi-service research of official military unit records for information that may verify an incident described by a veteran in a claim for disability compensation. Although the JSRRC no longer exists, the military unit records that were the subject of JSRRC research have not been impacted. Those records remain in the custody of the U.S. military and will be researched by VA as appropriate in the course of adjudicating claims for VA benefits. This amendment does not impact existing standards governing VA's duty to assist a claimant, under 38 U.S.C. 5103A, in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim.
Currently, 38 CFR 3.156(c) provides that VA will reconsider a previously decided claim if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim. Moreover, 38 CFR 3.156(c)(2) provides examples of service department records that do not qualify, and references the situation where the claimant had not provided, when VA decided the claim, sufficient information for VA to identify and obtain the records from “the respective service department, the Joint Services Records Research Center, or from any other official source.” This regulatory change removes from that section the reference to the JSRRC because it no longer exists. However, this change does not alter the essential import of the provision, as the JSRRC was only listed as an example of an official source from which VA could have obtained the records. The essential standard remains that nonqualifying records include those where the claimant had not provided sufficient information for VA to identify and obtain the records from “any official source.” Where the JSRRC existed at the time that VA decided the claim, the JSRRC would, in general, continue to qualify as an “official source” at that time for purposes of § 3.156(c)(2). For claims adjudicated after the JSRRC ceased to exist, the military records themselves previously researched by the JSRRC remain available for research by VA as an official source of records, as indicated above.
VA finds that there is good cause under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d) to publish this final rule without prior opportunity for public comment and with immediate effect. Namely, the removal of reference to JSRRC is minor, does not impact the applicable standard, aligns the regulation with an organizational change within the military that is outside of VA's control, and does not involve VA's exercise of policy-making discretion. Continuing to reference a non-existent research entity in the regulation would create the potential for
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The certification is based on the fact that the technical changes made by this rule do not affect entitlement to VA disability compensation, and in any event there is no impact on small entities or businesses. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.105, Pension to Veterans, Surviving Spouses, and Children; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death.
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Health care, Pensions, Radioactive materials, Veterans, Vietnam.
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on March 11, 2021 and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 3 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
(c) * * *
(2) Paragraph (c)(1) of this section does not apply to records that VA could not have obtained when it decided the claim because the records did not exist when VA decided the claim, or because the claimant failed to provide sufficient information for VA to identify and obtain the records from the respective service department or from any other official source.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The revision pertains to the Commonwealth's plan, submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (referred to as the “1997 ozone NAAQS”) in the Centre County, Pennsylvania area (State College Area). EPA is approving these revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on April 22, 2021.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0317. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Serena Nichols, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2053. Ms. Nichols can also be reached via electronic mail at
On October 14, 2020 (85 FR 65008), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the State College Area through December 14, 2027, in accordance with CAA section 175A. The formal SIP revision was submitted by PADEP on March 10, 2020.
On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857, effective June 15, 2004), EPA approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from PADEP for the State College Area. In accordance with CAA section 175A(b), at the end of the eighth year after the effective date of the redesignation, the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years, and in
As discussed in the October 14, 2020 NPRM, EPA allows the submittal of a limited maintenance plan (LMP) to meet the statutory requirement that the area will maintain for the statutory period. Qualifying areas may meet the maintenance demonstration by showing that the area's design value
8-hour average ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
Other specific requirements of PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
EPA received comments on the October 14, 2020 NPRM from three commenters. All comments received are in the docket for this rulemaking action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided herein. The first commenter alleges that the plan should not be approved because “PADEP's schedule is insufficient and the only two regulatory measures the state proposed are measures that have already been implemented,” and provides specific comments in support of this assertion:
Moreover, as a general matter, we do not agree that the schedules for implementation of contingency provisions in the LMP are insufficient. As noted, the CAA provides some degree of flexibility in assessing a maintenance plan's contingency measures—requiring that the plan contain such contingency provisions “as the Administrator deems necessary” to assure that any violations of the NAAQS will be “promptly” corrected. EPA's longstanding guidance for redesignations, the Calcagni Memo, also does not provide precise parameters for what strictly constitutes “prompt” implementation of contingency measures, noting that, for purposes of CAA section 175A, “a state is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take
PADEP identifies the consumer products contingency measure as being “additional controls” on consumer products. While Pennsylvania already has in place volatile organic compounds (VOC) limits for certain consumer products in its regulations at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, EPA understands that PADEP would need to use its rulemaking process to enact additional controls on VOC emissions from consumer products that go beyond those already implemented under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130. As the commenter points out, PADEP has not identified what those specific additional measures would be. EPA's interpretation of the CAA as stated in the Calcagni memo is that contingency measures are not required to be fully adopted in order to be approved. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the use of “additional” here as indicating that the State would be adopting new controls the go beyond those already on the books, by,
The commenter also objects to PADEP identifying controls on portable fuel containers as a contingency measure. As with the consumer products rule, PADEP clearly contemplates enacting, if the occasion arises, “additional controls” beyond any national or state rule already on the books and being implemented. Those “additional controls” would, like the consumer product rule, need to establish limits on VOC emissions on portable fuel containers that go beyond any regulations currently in effect in PA. Under the national rule codified 40 CFR 59.697, states are not precluded from adopting and enforcing any emission standard or limitation. EPA promulgates national regulations that provide a floor nationwide, but States have the legal authority under CAA section 116 to regulate more stringently.
We note that no maintenance plan can be expected to cover every possible contingency.
EPA is approving PADEP's second maintenance plan for the State College Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.
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 it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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 May 24, 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, approving PADEP's second maintenance plan for the State College Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially approving and partially disapproving a revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP) intended to provide for attaining the 2010 primary, health-based 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO
This final rule is effective on April 22, 2021.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0074. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Abigail Teener, Environmental Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-7314,
On November 25, 2020,
At that time, EPA also proposed to disapprove the attainment demonstration. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking provided an explanation of the provisions in the CAA and in the implementing stack height regulations that limit the stack height that is creditable for attainment planning purposes. In particular, the proposed rulemaking underscored the provisions that allow credit for stack heights above “formula GEP stack height” only if suitable control requirements are established, and only to the extent that such credit is necessary to resolve any remaining violations of the air quality standard. In addition, EPA proposed to disapprove the plan for failing to meet the requirements for meeting RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, RACM/RACT, emission limitations and control measures as necessary to attain the NAAQS, and contingency measures. EPA stated that final action to disapprove portions of the plan would start sanctions and Federal implementation plan (FIP) clocks for this area under CAA sections 179(a)-(b) and 110(c), respectively. EPA noted that the sanctions and FIP clocks would be terminated by an EPA rulemaking approving a revised plan.
The proposed action described above provided a public comment period that closed on December 28, 2020. EPA received one adverse comment letter from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin) and one anonymous, somewhat supportive comment on the proposed action. These comments are summarized below along with EPA's responses.
Wisconsin's comments state that Wisconsin and the company disagree with EPA's interpretation of the stack height regulations. However, since Wisconsin identified no specific objections to EPA's interpretation of these regulations as delineated in the proposed rule, EPA has no reason to reevaluate this interpretation as it applies here, and EPA continues to interpret the stack height regulations as prohibiting reliance on stack heights above formula GEP height, unless the plan also establishes control requirements specified in 40 CFR 51.100(ii)(3) and (kk)(1). EPA also notes that its interpretation has been judicially affirmed. See,
EPA appreciates that Wisconsin has nevertheless committed to submitting an approvable plan consistent with section 123 of the CAA and EPA's stack height regulations. EPA looks forward to a future rulemaking to address that submittal. EPA also appreciates the continued discussions between EPA and Wisconsin on these issues.
EPA understands that the finalization of the proposed action will not affect the timeline of Wisconsin's planned submittal of a corrective SIP, which Wisconsin expects to submit by March 31, 2021. Nevertheless, EPA may not defer acting on Wisconsin's 2016 submittal, which the State has never withdrawn, but must instead act more promptly due to a court-ordered deadline that was established for EPA to fulfill its obligation under section 110(k) of the CAA to complete rulemaking on this state submittal.
EPA will pursue a separate rulemaking to address a future supplemental submittal from Wisconsin. If EPA issues a rulemaking that shows that Wisconsin has met all applicable requirements, that action would terminate the sanctions and FIP clocks initiated by this action, and Wisconsin would be subject to no further planning obligations with respect to the 2010 SO
The commenter appears to have identified the primary distinction between the State's and EPA's interpretation of the stack height regulation, that EPA unlike the State believes that the stack height regulations require emission control (new source performance standards or, alternatively, best available retrofit technology) as a prerequisite for any credit being granted for stack height above formula GEP height. EPA presented an extensive description of its interpretation of these regulations in its proposed rule, and EPA believes that further discussion of how the State's views might differ is unwarranted in the absence of comments from the State specifying such distinctions in its interpretation. In any event, EPA's interpretation is well-settled, and was affirmed by the U.S. Coury of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in
The commenter is correct that control of SO
Wisconsin and the facility are well aware of control options for meeting the SO
EPA is approving the base year emissions inventory and affirming that the new source review requirements for the area have been met. EPA is also approving Wisconsin's Administrative Order AM-15-01, containing emission limits and associated compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for Ahlstrom-Munksj' (formerly Expera), as SIP strengthening.
As noted above, Wisconsin has committed to submit a supplemental submittal addressing EPA's concerns. EPA expects such a submittal to contain more stringent limits for Ahlstrom-Munksjö's Rhinelander facility, such that it may be appropriate for the prospective document containing the expected enhanced limits to replace the administrative order being approved here, with the result that the SIP, if revised by Wisconsin and approved by EPA to incorporate them, would then only include the enhanced requirements. However, any such replacement would be considered in the context of notice-and-comment rulemaking on the prospective Wisconsin submittal and is not germane here.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Wisconsin's Administrative Order AM-15-01 described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action partially approves and partially disapproves 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);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 May 24, 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends title 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(142) On January 22, 2016, July 18, 2016, and November 29, 2016, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources submitted a request to revise the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan for attaining the 2010 primary, health-based 1-hour SO
(i)
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
(c) The Administrator disapproves Wisconsin's attainment demonstration, submitted on January 22, 2016 and supplemented on July 18, 2016 and November 29, 2016, for the Rhinelander SO
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Correcting amendments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting a final rule that was published in the
The correction is effective on March 23, 2021.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0815. All documents in the docket are listed at
Mrs. Lula H. Melton, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division (E143-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2910; fax number: (919) 541-0516; email address:
In the final rulemaking published in the
In Method 4, we are revising sections 8.1.3.1, 8.1.3.2, and adding sections 8.1.3.2.1, 8.1.3.2.2, 8.1.3.2.3, 8.1.3.2.4, 8.1.3.3, and 8.1.3.4. We are also revising section 12.1.3.
In Method 5, we are revising sections 12.3, 12.11.1, 12.11.2, 16.1.1.4, and 16.2.3.3.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Performance specifications, Test methods and procedures.
Accordingly, 40 CFR part 60 is corrected as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions and revisions read as follows:
8.1.3.1 Leak Check of Metering System Shown in Figure 4-1. That portion of the sampling train from the pump to the orifice meter should be leak-checked prior to initial use and after each shipment. Leakage after the pump will result in less volume being recorded than is actually sampled. The following procedure is suggested (see Figure 5-2 of Method 5): Close the main valve on the meter box. Insert a one-hole rubber stopper with rubber tubing attached into the orifice exhaust pipe. Disconnect and vent the low side of the orifice manometer. Close off the low side orifice tap. Pressurize the system to 13 to 18 cm (5 to 7 in.) water column by blowing into the rubber tubing. Pinch off the tubing and observe the manometer for one minute. A loss of pressure on the manometer indicates a leak in the meter box; leaks, if present, must be corrected. 8.1.3.2 Pretest Leak Check. A pretest leak check of the sampling train is recommended, but not required. If the pretest leak check is conducted, the following procedure should be used. 8.1.3.2.1 After the sampling train has been assembled, turn on and set the filter and probe heating systems to the desired operating temperatures. Allow time for the temperatures to stabilize. 8.1.3.2.2 Leak-check the train by first plugging the inlet to the filter holder and pulling a 380 mm (15 in.) Hg vacuum. Then connect the probe to the train, and leak-check at approximately 25 mm (1 in.) Hg vacuum; alternatively, the probe may be leak-checked with the rest of the sampling train, in one step, at 380 mm (15 in.) Hg vacuum. Leakage rates in excess of 4 percent of the average sampling rate or 0.00057 m
8.1.3.4 Post-Test Leak Check. A leak check of the sampling train is mandatory at the conclusion of each sampling run. The leak check shall be performed in accordance with the procedures outlined in section 8.1.3.2, except that it shall be conducted at a vacuum equal to or greater than the maximum value reached during the sampling run. If the leakage rate is found to be no greater than 0.00057 m
12.1.3 Volume of Water Collected in Silica Gel.
12.3 Dry Gas Volume. Correct the sample volume measured by the dry gas meter to standard conditions (20 °C, 760mm Hg or 68 °F, 29.92 in. Hg) by using Equation 5-1.
(a) Case I. No component changes made during sampling run. In this case, replace V
(b) Case II. One or more component changes made during the sampling run. In this case, replace Vm in Equation 5-1 by the expression:
12.11.1 Calculation from Raw Data.
12.11.2 Calculation from Intermediate Values.
16.1.1.4 Calculate flow rate, Q, for each run using the wet test meter volume, V
16.2.3.3 Calculate the standard volumes of air passed through the DGM and the critical orifices, and calculate the DGM calibration factor, Y, using the equations below:
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule; delay of effective date.
This final rule implements a further delay until July 20, 2021, of the effective date of the rule entitled “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” published in the
As of March 22, 2021, the effective date of the final rule published at 85 FR 83822 (December 23, 2020), which was delayed at 86 FR 7059 (January 26, 2021), is further delayed until July 20, 2021.
Jennifer Joseph, Director, Office of Policy and Program Development, Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; by email at
On March 9, 2021, the Office of the Federal Register placed a HHS notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on file for public inspection. This NPRM was published in the
Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
HHS has considered all comments in finalizing this rule, as outlined in Section III below, and presents a summary of all significant comments and HHS responses.
HHS published a NPRM in the
As stated in the NPRM, consistent with Regulatory Freeze Memorandum and OMB Memorandum M-21-14, a delay of the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule will provide HHS additional time to review and consider further questions of fact, law, and policy the rule may raise, including whether revision or withdrawal of the rule may be warranted. HHS invited comments on the impact of the rule's administrative requirements, costs of new processes and procedures that would be necessary under the rule, the impact of the establishment of a new income eligibility threshold for health center operations, and the overall impact on care delivery and service levels for health center patients.
After HHS review of submitted comments, HHS believes that this delay is reasonable, and will allow HHS to consider the impact that the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule may have. The delay will also ensure that, consistent with concerns raised by commenters, implementation of the rule does not impede HHS's and health centers' immediate priority work, on a nationwide basis, of responding to and mitigating the spread of COVID-19, including ensuring equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, and maintaining the delivery of comprehensive primary health services to medically underserved populations, while considering how to address administrative/implementation issues raised by commenters and further address comments regarding the impact of the rule. In addition, the delay will not be disruptive since the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule has not yet taken effect and neither HHS nor health centers have undertaken the administrative changes associated with implementation of the rule.
Consistent with Regulatory Freeze Memorandum and OMB Memorandum M-21-14, HHS requested comment on whether a delay of the final rule would provide HHS additional time to review and consider further questions of fact, law, and policy the rule may raise, including whether revision or withdrawal of the rule may be warranted. HHS stated that it would further consider comments regarding the impact of the rule's administrative requirements, costs of new processes and procedures that would be necessary under the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule, the impact of the establishment of a new income eligibility threshold for health center operations, and the overall impact on care delivery and service levels for health center patients.
HHS received a total of 198 comments. Commenters identified themselves as individuals requiring insulin or injectable epinephrine and their family members, health centers, associations and organizations representing health centers, a professional organization, a diabetes research foundation, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, and clinical professionals. The vast majority of comments (187) favored a further delay in the effective date of the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule. Three comments opposed further delay of the effective date for the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule and supported implementation of the rule, though one commenter opposed to a further delay also urged HHS to take steps to limit administrative burden to health centers. The remaining comments did not explicitly support or oppose the delay.
Many commenters (175), including many health centers, primary care associations, and a number of other individuals and organizations, including a Health Care Controlled Network and a Medicaid Accountable Care Organization, also strongly urged that the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule be rescinded. Three commenters supported implementation of the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule, although one of those commenters also supported a delay to allow health centers time to come into compliance with the regulation.
All comments were considered in developing this final rule. This section presents a summary of all major issues raised by commenters, grouped by subject, as well as responses to the comments. Commenters used the terms “Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs)” and “health centers” interchangeably. For consistency, and as this rule applies to health centers funded under Section 330(e) of the PHS Act and not to other FQHCs this final rule uses “health center” throughout.
Approximately 181 commenters supported the delay as consistent with the “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” issued by the White House Chief of Staff on January 20, 2021. Specifically, commenters noted that this delay aligns with the Regulatory Freeze language to delay implementation “where necessary to continue to review these questions of fact, law, and policy,” and acknowledged the effort required for HHS to address those questions.
Approximately 169 commenters suggested that the impact of implementing the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-Saving Medications” rule on health centers' efforts to vaccinate hard-to-reach populations against COVID-19 should be considered as a new issue of “fact, law, and policy,” necessitating a further delay. These commenters noted that since the rule was initially delayed in January, health centers have been requested to perform a critical role in the national efforts to vaccinate hard-to-reach populations. Commenters stated that, in taking on this responsibility, health centers' staff and resources are being stretched to unprecedented levels, making the administrative and financial burden of implementing the rule even more challenging.
One commenter urged HHS to rescind the rule implementing Executive Order 13937 or delay implementation until the rule could be adequately considered and “substantive shortcomings” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) addressed. This commenter further noted that neither a rational basis nor legal authority was offered to target health centers for differential treatment nor to establish different policies for insulin and injectable epinephrine. In addition, the commenter expressed concern that the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule neither provided a rational basis for implementation of the new policy, nor addressed comments concerning the complexity and administrative challenges of implementation.
One commenter requested HHS consider delaying the effective date of the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency.
One commenter, a patient with Type 1 diabetes who supported the underlying rule, requested HHS delay the effective date of the rule to allow health centers time and resources to come into compliance with the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule. The commenter also stated that implementing the new rule will take substantial time and resources for health centers who are currently playing a critical role leading the national COVID-19 vaccination campaign.
Three commenters opposed further delaying the effective date of the rule.
Two of the three commenters opposed to delaying the effective date of the rule, including the family member of a patient with diabetes, cited the importance of insulin to patients with Type 1 diabetes. One of the three commenters opposed to delaying the effective date, supported implementation of the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule because access to affordable insulin is a top priority that can help those with Type 1 diabetes avoid emergency room visits, inpatient admissions, other complications, and save lives. The commenter cited the cost of insulin as a substantial economic burden for those living with Type 1 diabetes, and stated that the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule will benefit certain health center patients between 200% and 350% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines by helping them afford the insulin they need to survive. The commenter also encouraged HHS to limit any administrative burden to health centers subject to the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule. Another of the three commenters, a patient of a health center, expressed concern that further delaying of the effective date would keep much-needed pharmaceuticals out of the hands of certain patients, especially those with disabilities.
Another commenter, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, opposed any further delay of the effective date, arguing that policymakers are operating under the erroneous assumption that 340B discounts directly benefit patient access to drugs. Instead, the commenter stated, covered entity middlemen pocket the discounts, rather than pass them on to patients. The commenter provided data suggesting that the markup charged by some covered entities on insulin is as much as 200,000%. However, the commenter noted that none of the covered entities examined were health centers. The commenter encouraged HHS to look at its own data to see if “spread pricing” on penny priced insulin is an appropriate policy solution for federal grantees. The commenter stated that they have implemented a program for 340B pass-through pricing where patients receive insulin at the 340B price at the point-of-sale, which five covered entities have instituted, as evidence that such a policy is operationally feasible. The commenter stated that the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule would dramatically lower the cost of insulin for many of the most vulnerable patients in the country.
As stated in the NPRM for this delay, HHS will further consider and review comments submitted, including those made on the substance of the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule.
Most commenters raised issues that concerned the underlying rule, in particular, the high cost of these drugs, and the significant administrative costs associated with the rule. The nature of these comments suggests that a further delay of the “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications.” rule is warranted. This final rule does not address these substantive issues, but rather responds to concerns raised regarding the proposed delayed effective date. However, as stated in the NPRM, HHS will consider and review these comments on the substance of the underlying rule during the delay period.
Other commenters raised a variety of issues that do not pertain directly to either the delay period extended by this final rule or to the underlying “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” rule. This final rule does not address those issues as they are outside of its scope.
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when rulemaking is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that provide the greatest net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, safety, distributive, and equity effects). In addition, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, if a rule has a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, HHS must specifically consider the economic effect of a rule on small entities and analyze regulatory options that could lessen the impact of the rule.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
HHS has determined that no resources are required to implement the requirements in this rule because compensation will continue to be made consistent with the status quo. Therefore, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, which amended the RFA, HHS certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
HHS has also determined that this rule does not meet the criteria for a major rule under the Congressional Review Act or Executive Order 12866 and would have no major effect on the economy or federal expenditures. Similarly, it will not have effects on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector such as to require consultation under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Nor on the basis of family well-being will the provisions of this rule affect the following family elements: Family safety; family stability; marital commitment; parental rights in the education, nurture and supervision of their children; family functioning; disposable income or poverty; or the behavior and personal responsibility of youth, as determined under section 654(c) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999.
This final rule delays the effective date of the rule entitled “Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications” until July 20, 2021, to allow HHS additional opportunity for review and consideration of the rule. This delay is reasonable and will not be disruptive because the underlying rule has not yet been implemented or taken effect.
This rule has no information collection requirements.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) is issuing this final rule, in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, to adjust for inflation the statutory civil monetary penalties that may be assessed for violations of Service-administered statutes and their implementing regulations. We are required to adjust civil monetary penalties annually for inflation according to a formula specified in the Inflation Adjustment Act. This rule replaces the previously issued amounts with the updated amounts after using the 2021 inflation adjustment multiplier provided in the OMB guidance.
This rule is effective March 23, 2021.
This rule may be found on the internet at
Victoria Owens, Special Agent in Charge, Branch of Investigations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, (703) 358-1949.
The regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR part 11 provide uniform rules and procedures for the assessment of civil penalties resulting from violations of certain laws and regulations enforced by the Service.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (Inflation Adjustment Act) required Federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch up” adjustment through rulemaking and then make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to further the policy goals of the underlying statutes.
Under section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Inflation Adjustment Act, each Federal agency is required to issue regulations adjusting for inflation the statutory civil monetary penalties (civil penalties) that can be imposed under the laws administered by that agency. The Inflation Adjustment Act provided that the initial “catch up adjustment” take effect no later than August 1, 2016, followed by subsequent adjustments to be made no later than January 15 every year thereafter. This final rule adjusts the civil penalty amounts that may be imposed pursuant to each statutory provision beginning on the date specified above in
On June 28, 2016, the Service published in the
OMB issued a memorandum, M-21-10, entitled “Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2021, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,” which provides the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2021: 1.01182. Therefore, we multiplied each penalty in the table in 50 CFR 11.33 by 1.01182 to obtain the 2021 annual adjustment. The new amounts are reflected in the table in the rule portion of this document and replace the current amounts in 50 CFR 11.33.
In this final rule, we affirm the required determinations we made in the June 28, 2016, interim rule (81 FR 41862); for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive orders, see that rule:
• National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
• Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2));
• Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
• Executive Orders 12630, 12866, 12988, 13132, 13175, 13211, and 13563.
As stated above, under section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Inflation Adjustment Act, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 (2015), each Federal agency is required to issue regulations adjusting for inflation the statutory civil monetary penalties that can be imposed under the laws administered by that agency. The Inflation Adjustment Act provided for an initial “catch up adjustment” to take effect no later than August 1, 2016, followed by subsequent adjustments to be made no later than January 15 every year thereafter. This final rule adjusts the civil penalty amounts that may be imposed pursuant to each statutory provision beginning on the effective date of this rule. To comply with the Inflation Adjustment Act, we are issuing these regulations as a final rule.
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Imports, Penalties, Plants, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons described above, we amend part 11, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.
16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm, 470aaa-470aaa-11, 668-668d, 1361-1384, 1401-1407, 1531-1544, 3371-3378, 4201-4245, 4901-4916, 5201-5207, 5301-5306; 18 U.S.C. 42-43; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; and Sec. 107, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, unless otherwise noted.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; date of effectiveness for collection-of-information requirements.
NMFS announces approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of revisions to collection-of-information requirements published in a final rule on June 22, 2020 (June 2020 Final Rule). The June 2020 Final Rule revised the management regime for U.S. fishing vessels that target tunas and other highly migratory species (HMS) in the area of overlapping jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean between the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC) and revised the reporting and recordkeeping requirements applicable in that area. The June 2020 Final Rule did not include an effective date for those changes because OMB had not yet approved the collection-of-information revisions. This final rule announces OMB approval of the revisions to the collection-of-information requirements under OMB Control Numbers 0648-0649 and 0648-0218 and an effective date for the revisions to reporting requirements included in the June 2020 Final Rule.
This final rule is effective March 23, 2021. The amendment in instruction 7 to 50 CFR 300.218, published at 85 FR 37376 (June 22, 2020), is effective on March 23, 2021.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818 and to
Emily Reynolds, NMFS PIRO, 808-725-5039.
Under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFC Implementation Act; 16 U.S.C. 6901
The June 2020 Final Rule changes management of the overlap area so that all NMFS regulations implementing
The Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, has determined that this final rule is consistent with the WCPFC Implementation Act, and other applicable laws.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment for this action because notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This action simply provides notice of OMB's approval of the changes to the reporting requirements, which were described in the proposed rule (84 FR 60040; November 7, 2019) and the June 2020 Final Rule (85 FR 37376; June 22, 2020). Thus, this action does not involve any further exercise of agency discretion by NMFS or OMB. Moreover, the public has had prior notice and the opportunity to comment on the collection-of-information requirements. NMFS published a proposed rule including some of the changes to the collection-of-information requirements (84 FR 60040; November 7, 2019), with comments accepted until November 22, 2019. No comments were received relating to the changes to collection-of-information requirements. The June 2020 Final Rule (85 FR 37376; June 22, 2020) included additional changes to the collection-of-information requirements. As explained in the June 2020 Final Rule, the transshipment reporting requirements at 50 CFR 300.218(b) and (d), the discard reporting requirements at 50 CFR 300.218(e), the net sharing reporting requirements at 50 CFR 300.218(f), the daily purse seine fishing effort reports at 50 CFR 300.218(g), and the whale shark reporting requirements at 50 CFR 300.218(h) no longer apply in the overlap area. The whale shark reporting requirements were described as no longer applicable in the overlap area under the proposed rule. However, the other requirements listed are changes from the proposed rule in response to comments on the proposed rule. In addition, the June 2020 Final Rule indicated that this final rule would be published to announce the effective date for the reporting requirements upon OMB approval of OMB Control Numbers 0648-0649 and 0648-0218.
Because this rule relieves a restriction by putting into effect changes to certain reporting requirements so that they no longer apply in the overlap area, it is not subject to the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the APA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
The June 2020 Final Rule that amended the requirements at 50 CFR 300.218 was determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The June 2020 Final Rule removed certain regulations from application in the overlap area and revised certain reporting requirements so that they no longer apply in the overlap area. This final rule makes effective the revisions to reporting requirements for which the effective date was delayed in the June 2020 Final Rule.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements, which are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and which OMB approved under OMB Control Numbers 0648-0649 and 0648-0218. Specifically, the purse seine discard reporting requirements, purse seine net sharing reporting requirements, and purse seine daily effort reports at 50 CFR 300.218 no longer apply in the overlap area. The transshipment reporting requirements and transshipment notice requirements at 50 CFR 300.218 no longer apply in the overlap area to transshipment of fish caught in the overlap area, but continue to apply to fish caught in other parts of the area of application of the Convention on the Conservation of Highly Migratory Species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean and transshipped in the overlap area. The purse seine whale shark encirclement reporting requirements at 50 CFR 300.218 also no longer apply in the overlap area, but similar reporting requirements at 50 CFR 300.22 do apply. Because this final rule makes effective certain changes to reporting and recordkeeping requirements so that they no longer apply in the overlap area, this final rule would not affect the estimated public reporting burden of these collections. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA
16 U.S.C. 6901
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS announces the 2021 recreational fishing season for the Federal charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) component for red snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) through this temporary rule. The red snapper recreational for-hire component in the Gulf EEZ opens on June 1, 2021, and will close at 12:01 a.m., local time, on August 3, 2021. This closure is necessary to prevent the Federal for-hire component from exceeding its quota and to prevent overfishing of the Gulf red snapper resource.
The closure is effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, on August 3, 2021, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on January 1, 2022.
Daniel Luers, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-551-5719, email:
The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes red snapper, is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 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 final rule implementing Amendment 40 to the FMP established two components within the recreational sector fishing for Gulf red snapper: The private angling component, and the Federal for-hire component (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015). Amendment 40 also allocated the red snapper recreational ACL (recreational quota) between the components and established separate seasonal closures for the two components. The Federal for-hire component's red snapper annual catch target (ACT) is 9 percent below the for-hire component quota (85 FR 9684, February 20, 2020; 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(iii)(B)).
The red snapper for-hire component seasonal closure is projected from the component ACT. Projecting the for-hire component's seasonal closure using the ACT reduces the likelihood of the harvest exceeding the component quota and the total recreational quota.
All weights described in this temporary rule are in round weight.
The Federal for-hire component 2021 ACT for red snapper in the Gulf EEZ is 2.848 million lb (1.292 million kg) (50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(iii)(B)).
The 2021 Federal Gulf red snapper for-hire fishing season has been determined to be 63 days based on NMFS' projection of the date landings are expected to reach the component ACT. For details about the calculation of the projection for 2021, see
On and after the effective date of the Federal for-hire component closure, the bag and possession limits for red snapper for Federal for-hire vessels are zero. When the Federal for-hire component is closed, these bag and possession limits apply in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a valid Federal for-hire permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested,
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(i) and (ii), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866., and other applicable laws.
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 rule implementing the recreational red snapper quotas and ACTs, and the rule implementing the requirement to close the for-hire component when its ACT is projected to be reached have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because many for-hire operations book trips for clients in advance and require as much notice as NMFS is able to provide to adjust their business plans to account for the fishing season.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that damage (scorch marks) was found on an internal life raft installation that contained a half rescue kit. This proposed AD would require identifying the part number and serial number of each half rescue kit located in the internal life raft installation and, depending on the findings, inspecting the life raft for damage, inspecting the condition of the flashlight battery, testing the flashlight battery, and replacing the life raft or flashlight battery (including the leak test) as applicable, as specified in a European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 7, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 0000; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kathleen Arrigotti, Program Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax (206) 231-3218; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kathleen Arrigotti, Program Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax (206) 231-3218; email
The EASA (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0028, dated February 15, 2016 (EASA AD 2016-0028) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters.
This proposed AD was prompted by a report that damage (scorch marks) was found on an internal life raft installation that contained a half rescue kit. Investigation revealed that the damage was caused by an unsuitable folding process for the life raft, which led to compression of the flashlight battery in the half rescue kit. This compression caused an electrolyte leakage, followed by a short-circuit that damaged the internal life raft. The FAA is proposing this AD to address leakage of the flashlight battery in a half rescue kit, which could result in damage to the internal life raft, and subsequent failure of the internal life raft to deploy (for example after a ditching), which could impede or prevent safe evacuation of the occupants from the helicopter. See the MCAI for additional background information.
EASA AD 2016-0028 describes procedures for identifying the part number and serial number of each half rescue kit located in the internal life raft installation, inspecting the life raft for damage (scorch marks), inspecting the condition of the flashlight battery (including cracks, impacts, swelling, damage, distorted case, and the connecting wire), testing the flashlight battery (turning on the flashlight), and replacing the life raft or flashlight battery (including the leak test). This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2016-0028 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD and except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI.”
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2016-0028 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2016-0028 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2016-0028 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2016-0028 will be available on the internet at
Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2016-0028 specifies to return damaged life rafts to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
Where EASA AD 2016-0028 refers to its effective date or to January 7, 2016 (the effective date of EASA AD 2015-0242), this AD requires compliance within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.
Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2016-0028 specifies that trained and authorized Zodiac Aerospace personnel must do the inspection of the half rescue kit, this AD does not require that Zodiac Aerospace personnel do the inspection.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 30 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need these on-condition actions:
According to Zodiac Aerospace, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by May 7, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters, certificated in any category, as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD 2016-0028, dated February 15, 2016 (EASA AD 2016-0028).
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2564, Life Raft.
This AD was prompted by a report that damage (scorch marks) was found on an internal life raft installation that contained a half rescue kit. Investigation revealed that the damage was caused by an unsuitable folding process for the life raft, which led to compression of the flashlight battery in the half rescue kit. The FAA is issuing this AD to address leakage of the flashlight battery in a half rescue kit, which could result in damage to the internal life raft, and subsequent failure of the internal life raft to deploy (for example after a ditching), which could impede or prevent safe evacuation of the occupants from the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2016-0028.
(1) Where EASA AD 2016-0028 refers to its effective date or to January 7, 2016 (the effective date of EASA AD 2015-0242), this AD requires compliance within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2016-0028 does not apply to this AD.
(3) Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2016-0028 specifies to return certain parts, this AD does not include that requirement.
(4) Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2016-0028 specifies that trained and authorized Zodiac Aerospace personnel must do the inspection of the half rescue kit, this AD does not require that Zodiac Aerospace personnel do the inspection.
The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(1) For EASA AD 2016-0028, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 0000; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti, Program Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax (206) 231-3218; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Model 429 helicopters. This proposed AD would require inspecting certain serial-numbered Emergency Flotation System (EFS) inflation hoses and depending on the results of those inspections, marking certain parts or removing certain parts from service. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a float compartment on an EFS did not inflate. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 7, 2021.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Bell Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone 450-437-2862 or 800-363-8023; fax 450-433-0272; or at
Daniel E. Moore, Aviation Safety Engineer, Denver ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 26805 East 68th Ave., Denver, CO 80249; telephone 303-342-1086; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Daniel E. Moore, Aviation Safety Engineer, Denver ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 26805 East 68th Ave., Denver, CO 80249; telephone 303-342-1086; ; email
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD No. CF-2020-21R1, issued August 19, 2020 to correct an unsafe condition for Bell Model 429 helicopters, all serial numbers. The Transport Canada AD advises that during maintenance on an EFS, the third compartment of the left forward float did not inflate. Transport Canada advises that an investigation determined the supply hose for the gas flow from the pressurized cylinder to the float compartment was blocked due to a manufacturing defect. Bell advised that similar supply hoses are installed on various EFS part numbers, which could be installed on different helicopter type designs. Transport Canada advises that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in partial inflation of the EFS during an emergency landing on water, preventing a timely egress from the helicopter, and injury to helicopter occupants.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the Transport Canada AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Safran Aerosystems Services Service Bulletin No. 025-69-21, Revision 00, dated, March 23, 2020 (SB 025-69-21). SB 025-69-21 is attached as an appendix to Bell Alert Service Bulletin No. 429-20-52, dated March 30, 2020 (ASB 429-20-52). SB 025-69-21 is proposed for incorporation by reference in this proposed AD. ASB 429-20-52 is not proposed for incorporation by reference in this proposed AD. SB 025-69-21 specifies, for certain EFSs manufactured
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), removing each EFS supply hose and inspecting each end (also referred to as fitting or banjo) of the EFS supply hose using a certain plastic cable tie, and depending on the results of those inspections, removing from service certain parts and replacing those parts with airworthy parts. This proposed AD would also require marking a green dot on the base of certain supply hoses and writing “SB 025-69-21” above the external identification marking of the EFS with indelible ink. Finally, the proposed AD would prohibit installing any EFS supply hose manufactured before January 2014 unless it has been inspected in accordance with the proposed AD.
The Transport Canada AD requires compliance within 600 hours air time or within the next 24-month inspection of the EFS, whichever occurs first, whereas this proposed AD would require compliance within 100 hours TIS. The Transport Canada AD limits the applicability to certain EFS supply hoses listed in SB 025-69-21, whereas this proposed AD would apply to certain EFS supply hoses manufactured before January 2014 but excludes EFS supply hoses marked with “SB 025-69-21.”
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 110 helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
Removing and inspecting each EFS supply hose would take about 0.75 work-hour, for an estimated cost of $64 per hose.
Installing or replacing each EFS supply hose would take about 0.10 work-hour with a minimal parts cost, for an estimated cost of $9 per hose.
Marking each EFS supply hose with a green dot and the applicable service bulletin number would take a minimal amount of time at a nominal cost.
According to Safran's service information, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage by Safran. Accordingly, all costs are included in this cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to Bell Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Model 429 helicopters, certificated in any category, with a Bell Emergency Flotation System (EFS) kit P/N 429-706-069-101/-103/-105/-121/-123/-125/-139/-141/-143/or -157 manufactured before July 2019, with a float supply hose manufactured before January 2014, installed, except for float supply hoses marked with “SB 025-69-21” above the external identification marking.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a blocked float supply hose installed on an EFS. This condition could result in partial inflation of an EFS float during an emergency landing on water and subsequently preventing a timely egress from the helicopter.
The FAA must receive comments by May 7, 2021.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS): (i) Remove each EFS supply hose from the float and inspect each end of the EFS supply hose by inserting a plastic cable tie, 300 mm minimum × 5 mm maximum (11.811 in. minimum × .196 in. maximum), into the holes of the related fitting as shown in Figure 1 of Safran Aerosystems Services Service Bulletin No. 025-69-21, Revision 00, dated March 23, 2020 (SB 025-69-21).
Each end of the supply hose may also be referred to as fitting or banjo.
(ii) If the cable tie does not pass through the hose, before further flight, remove the EFS supply hose from service and replace it with an airworthy part.
(iii) If the cable tie passes through the supply hose, mark a green dot with indelible ink on the base of the supply hose and write “SB 025-69-21” above the external identification marking of the EFS with indelible ink.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install an EFS supply hose manufactured before January 2014 on any helicopter unless
(1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Daniel E. Moore, Aviation Safety Engineer, Denver, ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 26805 East 68th Ave., Denver, CO 80249; telephone 303-342-1086; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD No. CF-2020-212R1, dated August 19, 2020. You may view the Transport Canada AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2560, Emergency Equipment.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that applied to certain CFM International, S.A. (CFM) CFM56-5B, CFM56-5C, and CFM56-7B model turbofan engines with a certain rotating air high-pressure turbine (HPT) front seal. This action revises the NPRM by requiring CFM56-5B or CFM56-7B model turbofan engines with an installed reconfigured rotating air HPT front seal, which was previously installed and operated in a CFM56-5C model turbofan engine, to follow the removal requirements for the CFM56-5C model turbofan engine. The FAA is proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions would impose an additional burden over those in the NPRM the agency is requesting comments on this SNPRM.
The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by May 7, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact CFM International, S.A., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: (877) 432-3272; email:
You may examine the AD docket at
Christopher McGuire, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7120; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this SNPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this SNPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Christopher McGuire, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2019-12-05, Amendment 39-19660 (84 FR 28717, June 20, 2019), (AD 2019-12-05). AD 2019-12-05 applies to all CFM CFM56-5B, CFM56-5C, and CFM56-7B model turbofan engines with a certain rotating air HPT front seal. The NPRM published in the
Since the FAA issued the NPRM, CFM has issued CFM Service Bulletin (SB) CFM56-5B S/B 72-1074, Revision 02, dated November 6, 2019; CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0794, Revision 02, dated November 6, 2019; and CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1042, Revision 02, dated November 6, 2019. These SBs provide service information for following the removal limits established for CFM56-5C model turbofan engines for CFM56-5B or CFM56-7B model turbofan engines with a reconfigured rotating air HPT front seal that was previously operated in a CFM56-5C model turbofan engine.
The following discussion presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.
American Airlines, CFM, and Lufthansa Technik AG requested the FAA revise the language in the Installation Prohibition to specify that it is only applicable to those rotating air HPT front seals that have affected serial numbers (S/Ns). Lufthansa Technik AG also requested the FAA remove the Installation prohibition from this proposed rule. Lufthansa Technik AG indicated that this AD already requires the removal of rotating air HPT front seals at an interval that will prevent an unsafe condition.
The FAA partially agrees. The FAA has revised this proposed AD by adding language to the Installation Prohibition referencing the specific S/Ns in the Applicability section to ensure that the rotating air HPT front seals affected by the Installation Prohibition are clear. The FAA disagrees with the request to remove the Installation Prohibition. The requirement to remove rotating air HPT front seals is necessary to address the unsafe condition and provide a drawdown period to remove the affected rotating air HPT front seals from service. Rotating air HPT front seals installed on a different HPT disk from which they were removed after the effective date of the AD will not meet the certified removal limits established in the Airworthiness Limitations Section.
American Airlines requested the FAA clarify the engine and rotating air HPT front seal intermix requirements, since CFM has released SB revisions that provide guidance on rotating air HPT front seals that have been operated in multiple engine models.
The FAA agrees and has revised this proposed AD. The FAA revised the compliance requirements in this proposed AD by adding additional required actions for CFM56-5C model turbofan engines with an affected rotating air HPT front seal that was assembled to a second or later HPT disk since being reconfigured.
American Airlines requested the FAA add a paragraph to this proposed AD to specify that there are no reporting requirements. The commenter noted that the CFM SBs specify reporting information to CFM.
The FAA disagrees. The required actions of this AD do not mandate the use of the referenced service information to comply with this AD. The reporting instructions included in the SBs are not required by this AD. The FAA made no change to this AD.
Lufthansa Technik AG requested the FAA provide clarification regarding the NPRM supersedure preamble's discussion of expanding the applicability of the AD to include CFM56-5B, CFM56-5C, and CFM56-7B model turbofan engines. The commenter indicated that those engine models are already included in applicability of the AD 2019-12-05.
The NPRM supersedure preamble states that AD 2019-12-05 only addresses the highest risk engines with an affected rotating air HPT seal that has a specified number of cycles since being reconfigured. The NPRM supersedure proposes to expand the affected engine models to include all CFM CFM56-5B, CFM56-5C, and CFM56-7B model turbofan engines, including those engines that have fewer cycles since being reconfigured. The NPRM supersedure does not propose the addition of affected engine models to the applicability. The FAA made no change to this proposed AD.
The FAA is proposing this AD after determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
The FAA reviewed CFM Service Bulletin (SB) CFM56-5B S/B 72-1074, Revision 02, dated November 6, 2019; CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0794, Revision 02, dated November 6, 2019; and CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1042, Revision 02, dated November 6, 2019. CFM SB CFM56-5B S/B 72-1074, Revision 02, describes procedures for replacement of the affected rotating air HPT front seal on CFM CFM56-5B model turbofan engines. CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0794, Revision 02, describes procedures for replacement of the affected rotating air HPT front seal on CFM CFM56-5C model turbofan engines. CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1042, Revision 02, describes procedures for replacement of the affected rotating air HPT front seal on CFM CFM56-7B model turbofan engines.
This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2019-12-05 (84 FR 28717, June 20, 2019) (AD 2019-12-05). The proposed AD would expand the applicability to require the replacement of affected rotating air HPT front seals installed on CFM CFM56-5B, CFM56-5C, and CFM56-7B model turbofan engines that have fewer cycles since being reconfigured than the engines affected by AD 2019-12-05. This proposed AD would also require CFM56-5B and CFM56-7B model turbofan engines with a reconfigured rotating air HPT front seal that was previously operated in a CFM56-5C model turbofan engine to follow the removal requirements of the CFM56-5C model turbofan engine.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect four engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by May 7, 2021.
This AD replaces AD 2019-12-05, Amendment 39-19660 (84 FR 28717, June 20, 2019).
This AD applies to:
(1) CFM International, S.A. (CFM) CFM56-5B1, -5B2, -5B4, -5B5, -5B6, -5B7, -5B1/P, -5B2/P, -5B3/P, -5B4/P, -5B5/P, -5B6/P, -5B7/P, -5B8/P, -5B9/P, -5B3/P1, -5B4/P1, -5B1/2P, -5B2/2P, -5B3/2P, -5B4/2P, -5B6/2P, -5B9/2P, -5B3/2P1, -5B4/2P1, -7B20, -7B22, -7B24, -7B26, -7B27, -7B22/B1, -7B24/B1, -7B26/B1, -7B26/B2, -7B27/B1, -7B27/B3, -7B20/2, -7B22/2, -7B24/2, -7B26/2, -7B27/2, -7B27A model turbofan engines with a:
(i) Rotating air high-pressure turbine (HPT) front seal:
(A) With part number (P/N) 1795M36P01 or P/N 1795M36P02 and serial numbers (S/Ns) GWNDN949 through GWNSE969 or S/Ns GWN000CE through GWN0990L, not including S/Ns GWN08ND7, GWN0923A, GWN0971E, GWN098A1, GWN098W6, GWN098W8, GWN098WA, and GWN0990G, installed, and
(B) That has been removed from the original HPT disk and re-assembled to a different HPT disk.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) CFM CFM56-5C2, -5C2/4, -5C2/F, -5C2/F4, -5C2/G, -5C2/G4, -5C2/P, -5C3/F, -5C3/F4, -5C3/G, -5C3/G4, -5C3/P, -5C4, -5C4/1, -5C4/P, -5C4/1P model turbofan engines with a:
(i) Rotating air HPT front seal:
(A) With P/N 1795M36P01 or P/N 1795M36P02 and S/Ns GWNDN949 through GWNSE969 or S/Ns GWN000CE through GWN0990L, not including S/Ns GWN08ND7, GWN0923A, GWN0971E, GWN098A1, GWN098W6, GWN098W8, GWN098WA, and GWN0990G, installed, and
(B) That has been removed from the original HPT disk and re-assembled to a different HPT disk.
(ii) [Reserved]
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by cracks found in the rotating air HPT front seal. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the rotating air HPT front seal. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the uncontained release of the rotating air HPT front seal, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For all affected CFM CFM56-5B and CFM56-7B model turbofan engines:
(i) If, on July 5, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-12-05), the rotating air HPT front seal has 7,000 cycles or greater since being reconfigured, remove the part from service within 50 cycles after July 5, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-12-05), or before further flight, whichever occurs later, and replace with a part eligible for installation.
(ii) If, on July 5, 2019 (the effective date of 2019-12-05), the rotating air HPT front seal has between 6,001 and 6,999 cycles, inclusive, since being reconfigured, remove the part from service within 500 cycles after July 5, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-12-05), but not to exceed 7,050 cycles since being reconfigured, or before further flight, whichever occurs later, and replace with a part eligible for installation.
(iii) For all remaining CFM56-5B and CFM56-7B model turbofan engines, remove the rotating air HPT front seal from service before accumulating 6,500 cycles since being reconfigured, or within 50 cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For all affected CFM CFM56-5C model turbofan engines:
(i) If, on July 5, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-12-05), the rotating air HPT front seal has 4,250 cycles or greater since being reconfigured, remove the part from service within 25 cycles after July 5, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-12-05), within 1,500 cycles since the last fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) of the rotating air HPT front seal, or before further flight after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and replace with a part eligible for installation.
(ii) If, on July 5, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-12-05), the rotating air HPT front
(iii) For all remaining CFM CFM56-5C model turbofan engines, remove the rotating air HPT front seal from service before accumulating 4,000 cycles since being reconfigured, or within 50 cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(3) For CFM56-5B or CFM56-7B model turbofan engines with an affected rotating air HPT front seal that has been operated in a CFM56-5C model turbofan engine since being reconfigured, remove the rotating air HPT front seal from service using the cycle limits in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
For the purpose of this AD, “reconfigured” occurs when a rotating air HPT front seal has been removed from the original HPT disk and re-assembled to a different HPT disk.
After the effective date of this AD, do not assemble any rotating air HPT front seal with greater than 0 cycles since new, having a S/N listed in paragraph (c) of this AD onto a HPT disk unless it is the same S/N HPT disk on which it has previously been assembled.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in Related Information. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher McGuire, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7120; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact CFM International, S.A., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: (877) 432-3272; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 79-01-03, which applies to certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Model PA-36-285 airplanes, and AD 83-20-03, which applies to Piper Models PA-36-285, PA-36-300, and PA-36-375 airplanes. AD 79-01-03 requires repetitive inspections of the spar carry through assembly until it is replaced with a different part numbered spar carry through assembly. AD 83-20-03 establishes life limits for the wing spar structural components. Since the FAA issued AD 79-01-03 and AD 83-20-03, the FAA identified inspection and life limit requirements that were inadvertently omitted from those ADs. This proposed AD would retain the requirements in AD 79-01-03 and AD 83-20-03 and require the spar carry through assembly inspection from AD 79-01-03 for additional airplanes and add life limits for certain wing structural components previously omitted from AD 83-20-03 for certain serial numbered airplanes. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 7, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960; phone: (772) 567-4361; website:
You may examine the AD docket at
Dan McCully, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO Branch, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: (404) 474-5548; fax: (404) 474-5606; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan McCully, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO Branch, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued AD 79-01-03, Amendment 39-3383 (44 FR 36, January 2, 1979), Docket No. 78-EA-69 (AD 79-01-03), for certain Piper Model PA-36-285 airplanes. AD 79-01-03 requires repetitive inspections of spar carry through assembly part number (P/N) 97370-00, with repair as necessary, until the spar carry through assembly is replaced with P/N 76824-02. AD 79-01-03 was prompted by reports of cumulative damage to the wing spar carry through assembly, which resulted from fatigue testing and other field evidence of movement between the leg of the spar cap and the spar web. The FAA issued AD 79-01-03 to prevent hazards in flight associated with damage of the wing spar carry through assembly.
The FAA also issued AD 83-20-03, Amendment 39-4739 (48 FR 45535, October 6, 1983), Docket No. 83-CE-23-AD (AD 83-20-03), for Piper Models PA-36-285, PA-36-300, and PA-36-375 airplanes. AD 83-20-03 establishes life limits for certain wing structural components. AD 83-20-03 was prompted by manufacturer laboratory fatigue tests of the wing structure that identified the need to establish a service life limit for the wing structural components. The FAA issued AD 83-20-03 to prevent failure of the wing structural components because of fatigue damage.
Since the FAA issued AD 79-01-03 and AD 83-20-03, the FAA identified inconsistencies between the two ADs and the airplanes' type certificate. The FAA determined that the life limits for the spar carry through assembly, P/N 97370-00 or 76824-02, were inadvertently omitted from AD 83-20-03 for certain airplanes. The FAA is issuing this NPRM to add the life limit for the spar carry through assembly for Models PA-36-285 and PA-36-300 airplanes, serial numbers 36-7660123 through 36-8160023, and Model PA-36-375 airplanes, serial numbers 36-7802001 through 36-8302025. The FAA also determined the repetitive inspections of the spar carry through assembly required by AD 79-01-03 should apply to both Model PA-36-285 and Model PA-36-300 airplanes until the life limit replacement of the spar carry through assembly with P/N 76824-02. After the initial life limit replacement of the wing spar carry through assembly required by AD 83-20-03 (P/N 97370-00 with P/N 76824-02), the inspections required by AD 79-01-03 are no longer be required. In this NPRM, the FAA proposes to supersede both of those ADs.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc., Service Bulletin No. 552A, dated August 3, 2018 (Piper SB No. 552A); Piper Aircraft PA-36, Pawnee Brave Kit 764-394, Right Wing Main Spar Caps Replacement, dated June 9, 2012 (Piper Kit 764-394); and Piper Aircraft PA-36, Pawnee Brave Kit 764-393, Left Wing Main Spar Caps Replacement, dated June 9, 2012 (Piper Kit 764-393). Piper SB No. 552A applies to Models PA-36-285 and PA-36-300 airplanes and contains procedures for repetitively inspecting wing spar carry through assembly P/N 97370-00. Piper Kit 764-394 identifies the applicable parts and specifies procedures for replacing the right wing main spar caps, which includes the attachment bolts and wing carry through spar fittings and assembly. Piper Kit 764-393 identifies the applicable parts and specifies procedures for replacing the left wing main spar caps, which includes the attachment bolts and wing carry through spar fittings and assembly. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA also reviewed Piper Aircraft Corporation Service Bulletin No. 552, dated February 3, 1978 (Piper SB No. 552). Piper SB No. 552 contains the same procedures as Piper SB No. 552A, but Piper SB No. 552 only applies to Model PA-36-285 airplanes.
This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 79-01-03 and AD 83-20-03 but would apply some of the requirements to additional serial-numbered airplanes.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 123 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by May 7, 2021.
This AD replaces AD 79-01-03, Amendment 39-3383 (44 FR 36, January 2, 1979), Docket No. 78-EA-69 (AD 79-01-03); and AD 83-20-03, Amendment 39-4739 (48 FR 45535, October 6, 1983), Docket No. 83-CE-23-AD (83-20-03).
This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-36-285, PA-36-300, and PA-36-375 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 5700, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a review of AD 83-20-03 and AD 79-01-03 and the determination that the requirements of those ADs did not address all of the affected airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent fatigue damage to the wing structural components. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the wing structure with consequent loss of control.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For Models PA-36-285 and PA-36-300 airplanes, serial numbers 36-7360001 through 36-7560003, with a wing spar carry through assembly part number (P/N) 97370-00 installed, before the airplane accumulates a total of 2,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) or within 25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, inspect the wing spar carry through assembly by following the Instructions, section 1, of Piper Aircraft, Inc., Service Bulletin No. 552A, dated August 3, 2018, (Piper SB No. 552A).
(2) If any damage is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair or replace the wing spar carry through assembly by following the Instructions, section 2, of Piper SB No. 552A.
(3) Replacing wing spar carry through assembly P/N 97370-00 with wing spar carry through assembly P/N 76824-02 terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
Remove from service the wing structural components specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (8) of this AD before the part accumulates the life limit hours TIS set forth in table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD. If, on the effective date of this AD, the component will reach its life limit within 100 hours TIS or has already reached its life limit, remove the part from service within 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.
(1) Remove from service wing attachment upper bolt P/N 77245-00 and replace with an unused (zero hours TIS) wing attachment upper bolt P/N 77245-00.
(2) Remove from service any wing carry through spar fitting P/Ns 97713-00, 97713-02, or 97713-03 and replace with an unused (zero hours TIS) wing carry through spar fitting P/N 97713-03.
Wing carry through spar fitting P/N 97713-03 is included as part of spar carry through assembly P/N 76824-02.
(3) Remove from service wing spar fitting P/N 97712-00 and replace with an unused (zero hours TIS) wing spar fitting P/N 97712-00 by following steps D(1)(a) through D(1)(c)
This note applies to paragraphs (h)(3) and (7) of this AD. Replacement parts for the left and right wing spar fittings P/N 97712-00 and the right, left, top, and bottom spar assemblies P/Ns 97701-00 and 97701-01 are included with Piper Kit 764-393 and Piper Kit 764-394.
(4) Remove from service spar carry through assembly P/N 97370-00 or 76824-02, as applicable, and replace with an unused (zero hours TIS) spar carry through assembly P/N 76824-02.
(5) Remove from service spar assembly P/Ns 97701-00 and 97701-01, Revision P or later revision, and replace with an unused (zero hours TIS) spar assembly by following the Instructions, sections B. and C., in Piper Kit 764-393 or Piper Kit 764-394, as applicable.
(6) Remove from service any spar carry through assembly P/N 76767-00 or P/N 76824-02 and replace with an unused (zero hours TIS) spar carry through assembly P/N 76824-02.
(7) Remove from service spar assemblies P/Ns 97701-00 and 97701-01, Revision N or earlier revision, and replace with an unused (zero hours TIS) left spar cap replacement kit P/N 764-393 and right spar cap replacement kit P/N 764-394 by following the Instructions, sections B. and C., in Piper Kit 764-393 or Piper Kit 764-394, as applicable.
(8) Remove from service wing attachment lower bolt P/N 77245-00 and replace with an unused (zero hours TIS) P/N 77245-00 bolt.
You may take credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD if you performed those actions before the effective date of this AD using Piper Aircraft Corporation Service Bulletin No. 552, dated February 3, 1978.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in Related Information.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 79-01-03 and AD 83-20-03 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Dan McCully, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO Branch, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: (404) 474-5548; fax: (404) 474-5606; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960; phone: (772) 567-4361; website:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain CFM International, S.A. (CFM) LEAP-1A23, LEAP-1A24, LEAP-1A24E1, LEAP-1A26, LEAP-1A26CJ, LEAP-1A26E1, LEAP-1A29, LEAP-1A29CJ, LEAP-1A30, LEAP-1A32, LEAP-1A33, LEAP-1A33B2, and LEAP-1A35A model turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a manufacturing quality escape found during an inspection of a high-pressure turbine (HPT) case. This proposed AD would require the removal from service of the affected HPT case. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 7, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact CFM International, S.A., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: (877) 432-3272; email:
You may examine the AD docket at
Chris McGuire, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7120; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Chris McGuire, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA received a report of a manufacturing quality escape that identified certain HPT cases did not meet their approved type design. CFM determined the nonconforming parts could lead to over-temperature of the HPT mid-seal and uncontained rotor failure. A review of several x-rays of the bleed ports of the HPT case showed 148 parts with nonconforming indications, 8 of which were significant enough to impact the life of the HPT case. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the HPT case, uncontained rotor release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed CFM Service Bulletin (SB) LEAP-1A-72-00-0421-01A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated October 22, 2020. This SB specifies procedures for replacing the affected HPT cases. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties
This proposed AD would require removing the affected HPT cases from service and replacing the HPT case with a part eligible for installation.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 8 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by May 7, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to CFM International, S.A. (CFM) LEAP-1A23, LEAP-1A24, LEAP-1A24E1, LEAP-1A26, LEAP-1A26CJ, LEAP-1A26E1, LEAP-1A29, LEAP-1A29CJ, LEAP-1A30, LEAP-1A32, LEAP-1A33, LEAP-1A33B2, and LEAP-1A35A model turbofan engines, with a high-pressure turbine (HPT) case, part number (P/N) 2668M94G01, that contains a stage 7 port, P/N 2614M30P01, with a port casting serial number (S/N) listed in Table 1 in Planning Information, Paragraph 3.A., of CFM Service Bulletin (SB) LEAP-1A-72-00-0421-01A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated October 22, 2020.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code of America Code 7250, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by a report of a manufacturing quality escape found during inspection of an HPT case. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT case. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the HPT case, uncontained rotor release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before the HPT case exceeds the cycles since new limit in Table 1 in Planning Information, Paragraph 3.A., of CFM SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0421-01A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated October 22, 2020, or during the next piece part exposure, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, remove the affected HPT case from service and replace with a part eligible for installation.
For the purpose of this AD:
(1) A part eligible for installation is an HPT case, P/N 2668M94G01, that contains a stage 7 port, P/N 2614M30P01, with an S/N that is not listed in Table 1 in Planning Information, Paragraph 3.A., of CFM SB LEAP-1A-72-00-0421-01A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated October 22, 2020.
(2) Piece-part exposure is when the HPT case is removed from the engine and fully disassembled.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in Related Information. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Chris McGuire, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7120; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact CFM International, S.A.,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class D and Class E airspace at Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field, Sioux City, IA. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Sioux City VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The name and geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2021.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0176/Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-8 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class D airspace, the Class E surface airspace, and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field, Sioux City, IA, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0176/Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-8.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:
Amending the Class D airspace at Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field, Sioux City, IA,
Amending the Class E surface airspace at Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field by adding an extension 1 mile each side of the 001° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 4.4 miles north of the airport; updating the name (previously Sioux Gateway/Col. Bud Day Field) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removing the cities associated with the airports to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M; and updating the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement”;
And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field by removing the Sioux City VORTAC and associated extension from the airspace legal description; amending the extension northwest of the airport to within 3.9 miles (reduced from 4 miles) either side of the 316° (previously 001°) bearing from the Sioux Gateway/Brig. General Bud Day FLD: RWY 13-LOC (previously Sioux Gateway Airport/Col. Bud Day Field) extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field to 14.4 miles northwest of the Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field; adding an extension 3.9-miles each side of the 316° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.8-mile radius of the airport to 7.1 miles northwest of the airport; removing the city associated with the airport to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M; and updating the name (previously Sioux Gateway Airport/Col. Bud Day Field) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Sioux City VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,600 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field excluding that airspace within a 1-mile radius of Martin Field, and within 1 mile either side of the 001° bearing from the Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field extending from the 4.3-mile radius of Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field to 4.4 miles north of the Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace within a 4.3-mile radius of Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field, excluding that airspace within a 1-mile radius of Martin Field, and within 1 mile either side of the 001° bearing from the Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field extending from the 4.3-mile radius of Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field to 4.4 miles north of the Sioux Gateway Airport/Brigadier General Bud Day Field. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace at Neosho Hugh Robinson Airport, Neosho, MO. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Neosho VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program.
Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2021.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0177/Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-9 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Neosho Hugh Robinson Airport, Neosho, MO, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0177/Airspace Docket No. 21-ACE-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile (reduced from a 7-mile) radius of Neosho Hugh Robinson Airport, Neosho, MO; and removing the Neosho
This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Neosho VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Neosho Hugh Robinson Airport.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations that relates to the new mandatory 60-day postponement of certain time-sensitive tax-related deadlines by reason of a Federally declared disaster.
The teleconference public hearing, originally scheduled on Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 10:00a.m. is cancelled.
Regina Johnson of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) at (202) 317-5177 (not a toll-free number) or at
A notice of public hearing that appeared in the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
On August 19, 2020, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations that govern the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury Protection (TSGLI) program. This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) clarifies that VA's proposed denial of a petition for rulemaking, as set forth in that proposed rulemaking, is a proper subject for the submission of comments and provides a new opportunity for submission of such comments.
Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2021.
Comments may be submitted through
Paul Weaver, Department of Veterans Affairs Insurance Center (310/290B), 5000 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, (215) 842-2000, ext. 4263. (This is not a toll-free number.)
On August 19, 2020, VA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend VA regulations governing the TSGLI program. 85 FR 50973. That rulemaking also proposed to deny a petition for rulemaking requesting that VA:
1. Amend the definition of “traumatic event” in current § 9.20(b)(1) to include “application of . . . explosive ordnance . . . causing damage to a living being.”
2. Amend the definition of “traumatic injury” in current § 9.20(c)(2)(ii) to include a “physical illness or disease . . . caused by . . . explosive ordnance.”
3. Amend the list of exclusions in current § 9.20(e)(4)(i) to provide that a scheduled loss resulting from a “physical illness or disease caused by explosive ordnance” will not be excluded from TSGLI coverage.
4. Add the following definition of “explosive ordnance” to current § 9.20(e)(6): “all munitions containing explosives, . . . includ[ing], but . . . not limited to, improvised explosive devices (IEDs).”
This SNPRM does not propose any substantive changes to the previously published proposed rule. Rather, through this SNPRM, we simply seek to (1) clarify that VA proposes to deny the petition for rulemaking for the reasons set forth in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking,
VA hereby invites comments on the petition and the proposed denial thereof. Before making a final decision on the petition and the issuance of a final rulemaking, VA will consider all comments received during the comment period ending on October 19, 2020, in response to the August 2020 proposed rule and all comments received in response to this SNPRM by the closing date. If you submitted a comment regarding the petition in response to the August 2020 proposed rule, you do not need to submit the same comment again. This SNPRM does not reopen the other proposals that were contained in the August 2020 proposed rulemaking or request further comments on those proposals.
This proposed rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.103, Life Insurance for Veterans.
Life insurance, Servicemembers, Veterans.
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on March 8, 2021, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is acknowledging a recent filing requesting the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal One). This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On March 11, 2021, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports.
The Postal Service notes that past reliance on ODIS-RPW for business decisions has been replaced by the alternative disaggregated data source Informed Visibility (IV), addressing the Commission's previous concern that alternative disaggregated data sources be developed prior to reducing the sampling size of ODIS-RPW.
The proposed updates to ODIS-RPW include consolidation of non-digital sample areas from 189 to 10 to reduce the chance of the smaller sampling size creating strata with no usable tests.
Overall, the Postal Service proposes to reduce ODIS-RPW sample sizes from approximately 31,000 to 18,000 tests per quarter.
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2021-3 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's website at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2021-3 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal One), filed March 11, 2021.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than May 3, 2021.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Manon Boudreault to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Video Division has before it a petition for rulemaking filed November 27, 2020 (Petition) by Gray Television Licensee, LLC (Petitioner), the licensee of KCRG-TV (ABC), channel 9 (KCRG or Station), Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The Petitioner requests the substitution of channel 32 for channel 9 at Cedar Rapids, Iowa in the digital television (DTV) Table of Allotments.
Comments must be filed on or before April 22, 2021 and reply comments on or before May 7, 2021.
Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Joan Stewart, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.
Andrew Manley, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-0596 or
In support of its channel substitution request, the Petitioner states that the Commission has recognized that VHF channels have certain propagation characteristics which may cause reception issues for some viewers, and also that the “reception of VHF signals require larger antennas . . . relative to UHF channels.” According to the Petitioner, “many of its viewers experience significant difficulty receiving KCRG-TV's signal.” The Petitioner further states that its channel substitution proposal will result in no loss of service. We believe that the Petitioner's channel substitution proposal warrants consideration. Channel 32 can be substituted for channel 9 at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, as proposed, in compliance with the principal community coverage requirements of § 73.625(a) of the Commission's rules at coordinates 42-18-59.0 N and 91-51-31.0 W. In addition, we find that this channel change meets the technical requirements set forth in §§ 73.616 and 73.623 of the rules.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
Members of the public should note that all
See §§ 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules for information regarding the proper filing procedures for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
(i) * * *
U.S. Agency for International Development.
Notice of information collection.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested concerning whether the proposed or continuing collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 725 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 20543. Attention: Desk Officer for USAID.
U.S. Agency for International Development, Office of Human Capital and Talent Management, Office of Workforce Planning, Policy, and Systems Management (PPSM)—Washington, DC 20523; tel. 202-712-1234, option #2.
The purpose of this collection is to determine if a candidate is eligible to receive Physician and Dentist Pay under the provisions of Title 38. This information will be maintained by USAID and made available to the Internal Revenue Service for tax and withholding purposes and to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Disclosure is voluntary. However, without the requested information, USAID will not be able to process a candidate's request to receive Physician and Dentist Pay. Authority to collect this information is contained in 5 U.S.C. 1104 and 5 U.S.C. 5371. The Office of U.S. Office of Personnel Management delegated authority to USAID to use provisions of Title 38, U.S.C. until June 30, 2022.
Paper.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of USAID, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of USAID's estimate of the burden (including both hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. The comments will also become a matter of public record.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 22, 2021
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Participants who receive support in their quest to obtain and maintain jobs that pay livable wages may be more likely to engage in program services and progress toward their goals than those who do not receive such support. Studies of case management in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families E&T programs have found that participants who worked with case managers who handled both program eligibility and E&T were more likely to participate in E&T activities, and that team-based case management with integrated services showed promise in increasing participants' employment and earnings.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, USDA.
30-Day notice of submission of information collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget and request for comments.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the Office of the Chief Information Officer has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 22, 2021 will be considered.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
To request additional information, please contact Ruth Brown, 202-270-8958.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
The Agency received 1 comment in response to the 60-day notice published in the
Below we provide the Office of the Chief Information Officer's projected average estimates for the next three years:
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 Office of Management and Budget control number.
Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a public teleconference of the Advisory Committee on Minority Farmers (ACMF) will be held to discuss USDA outreach, technical assistance, and capacity building for and with minority farmers; the implementation of the Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran Farmer and Rancher Grant Program (2501 Program); and methods of maximizing the participation of minority farmers and ranchers in the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and to plan mechanisms for best providing advice to the Secretary on the issues outlined above.
The conference begins at 1:00 p.m. Central Time on April 7, 2021; you may join the conference 10 minutes prior.
Need an international dial-in number?
When you access the entry link above, you will be provided a choice—to install the WebEx plug-in for your preferred browser or to join the web conference using a temporary path. Either option is acceptable.
Need technical assistance?
Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the USDA will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
General information about the committee can also be found at
The Committee works in the interest of the public to ensure socially disadvantaged farmers have equal access to USDA programs. The Committee advises the Secretary on the implementation of section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990; methods of maximizing the participation of minority farmers and ranchers in U.S. Department of Agriculture programs; and civil rights activities within the Department, as such activities relate to participants in such programs.
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The Census Bureau is requesting approval to conduct the 2021, 2022 and 2023 Quarterly Summary of State & Local Government Tax Revenues. The Census Bureau is also requesting approval to add the collection of cannabis sales and sports betting sales taxes to the F72 component and remove the collection of all license taxes from the F-72 component of the QTax Survey. This will modernize the survey's content to maintain the relevancy and sustainability of these data.
The information contained in this survey is the most current information available on a nationwide basis for state and local government tax collections. Data are collected for fifty state governments and the District of Columbia and a sample of the local governments (approximately 7,300).
The Census Bureau conducts the three components of the QTax Survey to collect state and local government tax data for this data series established in 1962. It serves as a timely source of tax data for many data users and policy makers and is the most current information available on a nationwide basis for government tax collections Tax collection data are used to measure economic activity nationwide, as well as for comparison among the states. These data are also used in comparing the variety of taxes employed by individual states and in determining the revenue raising capacity of different types of taxes in different states.
Key users of these data include the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) who rely on these data to provide they provide insight into and the most current information on the complex nature and fiscal health of state and local government finances. These data are included in the quarterly estimates of the National Income and Product Accounts developed by BEA. HUD has used the property tax data as one of nine cost indicators for developing Section 8 rent adjustments. These data are widely used by Federal, state, and local legislators, policy makers, analysts, economists, and researchers to follow the changing characteristics and monitor trends in public sector revenues. The data are also widely used by the media and academia.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Cleveland Cuyahoga County Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 40, requesting an expansion of Subzone 40I on behalf of Swagelok Company (Swagelok) in Eastlake, Ohio. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on March 15, 2021.
Subzone 40I currently consists of the following sites:
The proposed expanded subzone would include the following additional site:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before May 24, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments by email to Mark Crace, IC Liaison, Bureau of Industry and Security, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Mark Crace, IC Liaison, Bureau of Industry and Security, phone 202-482-8093 or by email at
The Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, and Executive Order 12919, authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to assess the capabilities of the defense industrial base to support the national defense. They also develop policy alternatives to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet defense program needs. The information collected from voluntary surveys will be used to assist small- and medium-sized firms in defense transition and in gaining access to advanced technologies and manufacturing processes available from Federal Laboratories. The goal is to improve regions of the country adversely affected by cutbacks in defense spending and military base closures.
Electronically or on paper.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. This collection is necessary under Part 748.11 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before May 24, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments by email to Mark Crace, IC Liaison, Bureau of Industry and Security, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Mark Crace, IC Liaison, Bureau of Industry and Security, phone 202-482-8093 or by email at
Sections 4812(b)(7) and 4814(b)(1)(B) of the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), authorizes the President and the Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations to implement the ECRA including those provisions authorizing the control of exports of U.S. goods and technology to all foreign destinations, as necessary for the purpose of national security, foreign policy and short supply, and the provision prohibiting U.S. persons from participating in certain foreign boycotts.
Export control authority has been assigned directly to the Secretary of Commerce by the ECRA and delegated by the President to the Secretary of Commerce. This authority is administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security through the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The ECRA is not permanent legislation, and when it has lapsed due to the failure to enact a timely extension, Presidential executive orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) have directed and authorized the continuation in force of the EAR.
The collection is necessary under Part 748.11 of the EAR. This section states that the Form BIS-711, Statement by Ultimate Consignee and Purchaser, or a statement on company letterhead (in accordance with 748.11(b)(1), unless one or more of the exemptions set forth in Section 748.11(a)) exists. The BIS-711 or letter provides information on the foreign importer receiving the U.S. technology and how the technology will be utilized. The BIS-711 or letter provides assurances from the importer that the technology will not be misused, transferred or re-exported in violation of the EAR. The form is also required for certain reexport authorizations specified in Part 748.12(b) of the EAR.
Submitted electronically or on paper.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On November 23, 2020, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from India. The period of review is July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019. We continue to find that Jindal Poly Films Ltd. (India)(Jindal) did not make sales at less than normal value.
Applicable March 23, 2021.
Jacqueline Arrowsmith, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5255.
On November 23, 2020, Commerce published the
The products covered by the AD order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metalized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
As noted above, Commerce received no comments concerning the
Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in this review, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP no earlier than 35 days after publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Jindal will be zero, the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period in which that company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this or any previous review or in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the final results for the most recent period in which that manufacturer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review or the investigation, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the all-others rate of 5.71 percent, which is the all-others rate established by Commerce in the LTFV investigation.
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the final results within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation, which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. (Deacero) sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value during the November 1, 2018, through October 31, 2019 period of review (POR). In addition, Commerce preliminarily determines that Ternium Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Ternium) had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable March 23, 2021.
David Lindgren, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1671.
On November 6, 2014, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Mexico in the
On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by 50 days.
Commerce initiated this administrative review covering the following companies: AceroMex S.A.; Aceros Especiales Simec Tlaxcala; Arcelor Mittal; Arcelor Mittal Celaya; ArcelorMittal Cordoba S.A. de C.V.; ArcelorMittal Lazaro Cardenas S.A. de C.V.; Cia Siderurgica De California, S.A. de C.V.; Compania Siderurgica de California, S.A. de C.V.; DE ACERO SA. DE CV.; Deacero; Grupo Simec; Grupo Villacero S.A. de C.V.; Industrias CH; Orge S.A. de C.V.; Siderurgica Tultitlan S.A. de C.V.; Simec International S.A. de C.V.; Talleres y Aceros, S.A. de C.V.; and, Ternium Mexico, S.A. de C.V. On March 4, 2020, we limited the number of respondents selected for individual examination in this administrative review to Deacero.
The product covered by the
We preliminarily determine that Ternium made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Moreover, consistent with our practice, we are not preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Ternium, but, rather, we will complete the review with respect to the company and issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) based on the final results of this review.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Act. Constructed export price was calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value was calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results,
We are applying to the non-selected companies the rate preliminarily calculated for Deacero in this administrative review, which is the only calculated rate in this administrative review that is not zero,
We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed in these preliminary results to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via Commerce's electric records system, ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. Easter Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended.
Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If the weighted-average dumping margin for Deacero (
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Deacero for which the producer did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, or for any respondent for which we have a final determination of no shipments, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company (or companies) involved in the transaction.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Deacero and other companies listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that POSCO, a producer and exporter of carbon and alloy steel wire rod from the Republic of Korea (Korea) sold the subject merchandise at prices below normal value during the period of review (POR), October 31, 2017, through April 30, 2019.
Applicable March 23, 2021.
Lingjun Wang, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2316.
On July 24, 2020, Commerce published the
On April 24, 2020, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative reviews by 50 days.
The scope of the
We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached in an appendix to this
We made two changes to the preliminary margin calculation: (1) We refined conversion costs by diameters using ratios derived from the reported production-line-month specific costs; (2) we corrected the beginning date for U.S. sales. For a full discussion of these changes,
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October 31, 2017 through April 30, 2019:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for the final results of review within five days of the publication date of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by POSCO for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
Consistent with its recent notice,
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for POSCO is equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter was not covered in this review or the investigation, but the producer was covered, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 41.10 percent, the all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair-value investigation.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that sales of diffusion-
Applicable March 23, 2021.
Ian Hamilton, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4798.
This review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd. (Toyo Kohan). On July 21, 2020, Commerce published the
The merchandise subject to the order is diffusion-annealed, nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products from Japan. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7212.50.0000 and 7210.90.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the IDM.
Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties on the
As a result of this review, Commerce determines that a weighted-average dumping margin of 4.56 percent exists for Toyo Kohan for the period May 1, 2018, through April 30, 2019.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Toyo Kohan reported the entered value of its U.S. sales such that we calculated importer-specific
Consistent with its recent notice,
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Toyo Kohan will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin that is established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Survey Working Group via webinar to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Friday, April 9, 2021 at 9 a.m. via webinar.
All meeting participants and interested parties can register to join the webinar at
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Scallop Survey Working Group (SSWG) will meet to discuss expectations for the (newly created) working group, including the Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures. They will also talk about the Terms of Reference (TORs): Review the draft terms of reference and initial input from working group members. Develop recommendations for final TORs for approval. Identify methods and analyses needed to address TORs, including timelines for completion, and SSWG sub-groups to complete the work. Other business may be discussed, as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 978-465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the BBC Natural History and Factual Productions Ltd, Broadcasting House, Whiteladies Road, Bristol, BS8 2LR, United Kingdom (Responsible Party: Daniel Rasmussen), has applied in due form for a permit to conduct commercial or educational photography on marine mammals.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before April 22, 2021.
These documents are available upon written request via email to
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Jordan Rutland or Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant proposes to film bottlenose dolphins (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application submitted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center in support of the 2021 Study Fleet Program contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This Exempted Fishing Permit would exempt participating vessels from minimum fish sizes and possession limits for species of interest, for sampling purposes only. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notice to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on Exempted Fishing Permit applications.
Comments must be received on or before
You may submit written comments by the following method:
•
Maria Fenton, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9196.
The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (Center) submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) in support of the 2021 Study Fleet Program. This EFP would exempt 20 commercial fishing vessels from minimum fish sizes and possession limits for species of interest.
The Center established the Study Fleet Program in 2002 to more fully characterize commercial fishing operations and provide sampling opportunities to augment NMFS's data collection programs. As part of the program, the Center contracts commercial fishing vessels to collect biological data and fish specimens for the Center to use in research relevant to stock assessments and fish biology. The Center's Study Fleet Program trains participating captains and crew to conduct at-sea sampling consistent with Center sampling protocols for survey and observer programs. During EFP trips, crew would sort, weigh, measure, and collect biological data from fish prior to discarding. During sampling, some discarded fish would remain on deck slightly longer than they would under normal sorting procedures. Exemptions from minimum fish sizes and possession restrictions would allow vessels to temporarily retain catch for at-sea sampling.
Table 1 lists the regulations from which participating vessels would be exempt for at-sea sampling or when retaining and landing fish for research purposes. The exemptions listed in Table 1 are necessary for contracted vessels to acquire the biological samples needed to meet Center research objectives.
When directed by the Center, participating vessels would be authorized to retain and land specific amounts of fish exceeding possession limits and/or below minimum fish sizes, for research purposes only. The captain or crew would deliver these fish to Center staff or local Port Agents upon landing. In these limited circumstances, the Study Fleet Program would give participating vessels a formal biological sampling request prior to landing. This would ensure that the landed fish do not exceed any collection needs of the Study Fleet Program, as detailed in Table 2.
All catch would be attributed to the appropriate commercial fishing quota. For a vessel fishing on a groundfish sector trip, all catch of groundfish stocks allocated to sectors would be deducted from the vessel's sector's annual catch entitlement (ACE). Once the ACE for a stock has been reached in a sector, vessels would no longer be allowed to fish in that stock area unless the sector acquired additional ACE for the stock in question. For common pool vessels, all groundfish catch would be counted toward the appropriate trimester total allowable catch (TAC). Common pool vessels would be exempt from the possession and trip limits listed in Table 1, but would still be subject to trimester TAC closures.
If approved, the Center may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impact that does not change the scope of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on spectrum management policy matters.
The meeting will be held April 8, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
This meeting will be conducted in an electronic format and open to the public via audio teleconference (866-880-0098 participant code 48261650). Public comments may be emailed to
Antonio Richardson, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 482-4156 or
This Committee is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and is consistent with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act, 47 U.S.C. 904(b). The Committee functions solely as an advisory body in compliance with the FACA. For more information about the Committee visit:
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Request for comments.
This request for comments seeks public input on proposed administrative updates to the General Requirements Bulletin for Admission to the Examination for Registration to Practice in Patent Cases Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (GRB). There are three categories of technical and scientific qualifications that may typically make applicants eligible: Category A for specified bachelor's degrees, Category B for other bachelor's degrees with technical and scientific training, and Category C for practical engineering or scientific experience, which may be demonstrated by passing the Fundamentals of Engineering test. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) evaluates the criteria for applicants to sit for the registration examination on an ongoing basis. Based on this ongoing evaluation, the USPTO is looking into changing the criteria to: Add common Category B degrees to Category A, accept advanced degrees (
Comment Deadline Date: Written comments must be received on or before May 24, 2021.
For reasons of government efficiency, comments must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal for additional instructions on providing comments via the portal. If electronic submission of and access to comments is not feasible due to a lack of access to a computer and/or the internet, please contact the USPTO using the contact information below for special instructions.
William Covey, OED Director, by telephone at 571-272-4097 or by email at
In this request for comments, the Office seeks feedback and information regarding proposed administrative updates to the GRB to the criteria of applicants who sit for the registration examination.
The Director of the USPTO is given statutory authority to require a showing by patent practitioners that they possess “the necessary qualifications to render applicants or other persons valuable service, advice, and assistance in the presentation or prosecution of their applications or other business before the Office.” 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(D). Thus, courts have determined that the USPTO Director bears primary responsibility for protecting the public from unqualified practitioners.
Pursuant to that responsibility, USPTO regulations provide that registration to practice in patent matters before the USPTO requires a practitioner to,
The GRB lists three categories of scientific and technical qualifications that typically make one eligible for admission to the registration examination: (1) Category A for specified bachelor's degrees, (2) Category B for other bachelor's degrees with technical and scientific training, and (3) Category C for individuals who rely on practical engineering or scientific experience and have passed the Fundamentals of Engineering test. If a candidate for registration does not qualify under any of the categories listed in the GRB, the USPTO will conduct an independent review for compliance with the scientific and technical qualifications.
The OED has evaluated, and continues to evaluate, the list of typically qualifying training set forth in the GRB. These evaluations seek to clarify guidance on what will satisfy the scientific and technical qualifications and to identify possible areas of improved administrative efficiency. The following proposals reflect the results of those evaluations.
The Office seeks written comments from the public on proposed administrative updates to the GRB for those who sit for the registration examination. The goal of the proposed updates is to ensure fairness in the application process while also ensuring that patent practitioners who represent inventors are qualified, understand the technology, and are able to communicate effectively with inventors regarding the technical features of the invention.
The Office welcomes any comments from the public on the proposals covered in this notice. The Office also poses specific questions below and invites public feedback on those questions.
As explained further in the GRB, bachelor's degrees listed under Category A present prima facie evidence of the requisite technical and scientific qualifications. Currently, the bachelor's degree may be in one of the following subjects: Biology, biochemistry, botany, computer science, electronics technology, food technology, general chemistry, marine technology, microbiology, molecular biology, organic chemistry, pharmacology, physics, textile technology, aeronautical engineering, agricultural engineering, biomedical engineering, ceramic engineering, chemical engineering, civil engineering, computer engineering, electrical engineering, electrochemical engineering, engineering physics, general engineering, geological engineering, industrial engineering, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering, mining engineering, nuclear engineering, and petroleum engineering.
Acceptable computer science degrees must be accredited by the Computer Science Accreditation Commission of the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board or by the Computing Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology on or before the date the degree was awarded.
Starting in early 2020, the OED undertook a review of Category B applications to identify bachelor's degrees that are routinely accepted as demonstrating the requisite scientific and technical qualifications. This review is ongoing. Based on the analysis to date, and understanding that Category A cannot be an exhaustive list of all degrees that would qualify and that current practice is to accept degrees wherein the transcript demonstrates equivalence to a Category A degree (for example, molecular cell biology may be equivalent to biology), the Office proposes expanding the list of Category A degrees to expressly include the following degrees that are routinely accepted: Aerospace engineering, bioengineering, biological science, biophysics, electronics engineering, genetic engineering, genetics, marine engineering, materials engineering, materials science, neuroscience, ocean engineering, and textile engineering. Listing these Category B degrees under Category A would improve operating efficiency and streamline the application process for prospective patent practitioners. The USPTO invites comments on the inclusion of any of these degrees in Category A, as well as any additional degrees that should be considered.
Category A does not currently include post-baccalaureate degrees. The USPTO proposes updating the GRB to list possession of a master's or a doctoral degree in a Category A subject as demonstrating acceptable technical and scientific training. The USPTO invites comment on whether to include master's or doctoral degrees in a Category A subject as qualifying technical and scientific training.
Category B, Option 4 in the GRB requires a combination of 40 credit hours in acceptable technical and scientific courses, including at least 8 hours in either chemistry with a lab or 8 hours in physics with a lab. Category B, Option 2, which focuses on training in biology and related sciences, has a similar requirement. The requirement for lab-based core science courses is meant to ensure familiarity with the processes involved in conducting valid experiments, the scientific method, and proper analysis of scientific data.
However, it is not clear whether multiple courses in either chemistry or physics alone, with a lab, provide an appreciable benefit over general core science training. Accordingly, the USPTO proposes revising Category B, Option 4 by changing “8 semester hours in chemistry or 8 semester hours of physics . . . obtained in two sequential courses, each containing a lab” to “eight semester hours in a combination of chemistry, physics, and/or biology, with at least one course including a lab.” Category B, Option 2, which already requires training in biology, would be revised to require at least “eight semester hours in a combination of chemistry and physics, with at least one course including a lab.” The USPTO invites comments on whether to change the requirement under Category B, Option 4 from two sequential courses in chemistry or physics, each containing a lab, to that of eight semester hours in a combination of chemistry, physics, and/or biology, with at least one course including a lab, and whether to change the similar requirement under Category B, Option 2 to eight semester hours in a combination of chemistry and physics, with at least one course including a lab.
As noted above, the Office welcomes comments from the public on any portion of the proposed updates to the
1. What additional degrees should qualify under Category A?
2. Should the USPTO include master's or doctoral degrees in a Category A subject as qualifying technical and scientific training?
3. Should the USPTO change the Category B requirement of two sequential courses in chemistry or physics, each containing a lab to that of eight semester hours in a combination of chemistry, physics, and/or biology, with at least one course including a lab for Option 4; and to eight semester hours in a combination of chemistry and physics, with at least one course including a lab for Option 2?
Thursday, March 25, 2021, 10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m.
Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the meetings will be held remotely.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
Decisional Matters:
All attendees should preregister for the Webinar. To pre-register for the Webinar, please visit:
Thursday, March 25, 2021; 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, this meeting will be held remotely.
Commission Meeting—Closed to the Public.
Decisional matter.
Alberta E. Mills, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 (Cell).
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 22, 2021.
A contractor request for reimbursement under section 3610 must include sufficient documentation to support the request and enable the contracting officer to determine whether a contractor is eligible for reimbursement under section 3610 and, if so, the amount of reimbursement to provide to a contractor. Contractors' requests for reimbursement under section 3610 will vary in dollar amount and complexity; as such, so will the amount and type of information needed from a contractor to support their reimbursement request. Based on this variation, contracting officers will use one of three DoD reimbursement checklists to advise contractors of the information needed to support their request. The information described in the checklists is necessary to collect from contractors in order to ensure that contracting officers are able to determine whether to approve the request for reimbursement and expediently modify the affected contract(s) for the authorized reimbursement amount.
Section 3610 also requires that any reimbursements made under its authority are reduced by the amount of credit a contractor is allowed under other provisions of the CARES Act and division G of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) (Pub. L. 116-127). As the status of such credits may not be known at the time of reimbursement, DFARS clause 252.243-7999, Section 3610 Reimbursement (Deviation 2020-O0021), requires contractors to notify the contracting officer of any credits received after receiving reimbursement under section 3610 and make any repayment, as necessary, to comply with the requirements of section 3610. This information is necessary so that contracting officers may comply with the provisions of section 3610.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Susan Minson, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Charleston District, announces its intent to conduct public scoping and solicit public comments to gather information to prepare a draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (IFR/EIS). In April 2020, USACE released a draft Integrated Feasibility Report/Environmental Assessment (IFR/EA) with a draft mitigated Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) for the Charleston Peninsula Coastal Flood Risk Management Study. After further agency analysis, review of comments received on the Draft IFR/EA, and continued refinement of the study, USACE concluded that an IFR/EIS with a Record of Decision (ROD) would fulfill NEPA compliance for the study. Comments received during the draft IFR/EA public comment period will be considered as part of the scoping process for the IFR/EIS, and do not need be resubmitted.
USACE requests comments concerning the scope of the alternatives and identification of relevant information, studies, and analyses. All comments must be received by April 22, 2021. The draft IFR/EIS is scheduled to be released for a minimum 45-day public review in late summer of 2021. The final IFR/EIS is scheduled to be released in the summer of 2022. The ROD will be signed no sooner than 30 days after the release of the IFR/EIS.
Send written comments to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District, ATTN: Planning and Environmental Branch, 69A Hagood Avenue, Charleston, SC 29403. Send comments via email to
Nancy Parrish, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 69A Hagood Avenue, Charleston, SC 29403, (843) 329-8050, or
USACE is issuing this notice pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321
The draft IFR/EIS will update and expand upon the effects analyzed in the draft IFR/EA which included, but were not limited to, positive and negative impacts to the cultural resources and historic properties, wetlands, visual aesthetics, aquatic and terrestrial resources, water quality, geology, air quality and noise, coastal hydrodynamics, hydrology and hydraulics, recreation, transportation, utilities, socioeconomics, and environmental justice.
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (already initiated).
• Consultation under Section 106 and Section 110(f) of the National Historic Preservation Act (already initiated).
• Consultations under Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Endangered Species Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act.
• Clean Water Act: Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Section 404(b)1 analysis.
• Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination.
Information regarding the upcoming public scoping meeting, including date and time, is published on the study's website at:
Office of Communication and Outreach (OCO), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of a currently approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 22, 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 Simone Olson, 202-205-8719.
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
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 22, 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 Karen Epps, (202) 453-6337.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Edwards Sanborn Storage I, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 6, 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 is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Crystal Lake Wind Energy III, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 6, 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
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Part 284 Natural Gas Pipeline 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:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Battenkill Hydro filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on February 1, 2021. Battenkill Hydro provided public notice of its request on January 20, 2021. In a letter dated March 17, 2021, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Battenkill Hydro's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402. We are also initiating consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Battenkill Hydro as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Battenkill Hydro filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed and/or printed on the Commission's website (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a subsequent license for Project No. 6904. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a subsequent license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by January 31, 2024.
p. Register online 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:
On February19, 2021, Ohio Power and Light, LLC. filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Robert C. Byrd Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project to be located on the Ohio River, near the Town of Gallipolis, in Gallia County, Ohio, and Mason County, West Virginia. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would utilize the impoundment formed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers R.C. Byrd Locks and Dam and consist of the following: (1) A new 150-foot-long by 250-foot-wide concrete-walled intake/forebay structure; (2) a new 250-foot-wide by 170-foot-long concrete powerhouse containing four 5.75-megawatt (MW) pit turbine-generators for a total project capacity of 21.1 MW; (3) a new 300-foot-long by 300-foot-wide tailrace; (4) a new 60-foot-long by 60-foot-wide substation; (5) a new 2.41-mile-long, 138-kilovolt transmission line.; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Robert C. Byrd Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project would be 165,000 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's website at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Battenkill Hydro filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on February 1, 2021. Battenkill Hydro provided public notice of its request on January 20, 2021. In a letter dated March 17, 2021, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Battenkill Hydro's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402. We are also initiating consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Battenkill Hydro as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Battenkill Hydro filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed and/or printed on the Commission's website (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a subsequent license for Project No. 6903. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a subsequent license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by April 30, 2024.
p. Register online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing an external expert peer review and public comment for the EPA Multiple-Path Particle Dosimetry (MPPD) Model Software (MPPD EPA 2021 v. 1.01) and its associated “Technical Support Documentation and User's Guide (External Review Draft)” ([EPA/600/R-20/406]). The document was prepared by the Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA) within EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), with contributions from Applied Research Associates, Inc., and Fred J. Miller, LLC. EPA is releasing this draft model software version and associated document to seek review by external experts and the public. This external review draft document and model software (MPPD EPA 2021 v. 1.01) are not final and do not represent, and should not be construed to represent, any final Agency policy or views. When revising the document and the model software, EPA will consider any peer or public comments submitted during the public comment period specified in this document.
The 30-day public comment period begins March 23, 2021 and ends April 22, 2021. Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2021.
The EPA Multiple-Path Particle Dosimetry (MPPD) Model Software (MPPD EPA 2021 v. 1.01) and its associated “Technical Support Documentation and User's Guide” (External Review Draft)” will be available from the contractor managing the external peer review, Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). To obtain a copy of the external review draft or the associated MPPD software (EPA 2021 v. 1.01), contact ERG at email:
For information on the public comment period, contact the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center;
The EPA is undertaking an external peer review of an EPA version of the Multiple-Path Particle Dosimetry (MPPD) model (MPPD EPA 2021 v. 1.01) and its software, together with an EPA Technical Support Documentation and User's Guide. The EPA introduced formal dosimetry modeling into its derivation procedures for risk assessment of inhaled materials with its 1994 document entitled “Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations (RfCs) and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry” (US EPA, 1994). These methods relied upon the Regional Deposited Dose Ratio (RDDR) model and underwent two expert technical panel and two expert Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviews prior to finalization. The dosimetry adjustments were also subsequently incorporated into the Agency's guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment (US EPA, 2005).
The EPA RDDR model was an empirical model fit to a unique set of experimental data from inhalation studies across five laboratory animal species commonly used in testing for regulatory risk assessment as well as for humans. The model provided predictions of inhaled deposited dose in various regions of the respiratory tract, including the extrathoracic (ET), tracheobronchial (TB), pulmonary (PU), thoracic (TB + PU) or total respiratory tract (TOTAL).
However, since 1994, mechanistic modeling of inhalation dosimetry for particles has matured. The MPPD model and its software include many modernized features, with some dose metric predictions now based on mechanistic descriptions instead of empirical fitting, the ability to address a wider range of particle size, providing prediction of retained mass for some species, and including some different test species.
The EPA is convening this external peer review to evaluate the MPPD model. The model results provide dosimetry adjustment of inhalation exposures for the following purposes: Interspecies extrapolation, evaluation of intra-human variability, informing experimental design, and in vitro to in vivo (IVIVE) extrapolation.
The EPA Multiple-Path Particle Dosimetry (MPPD) Model Software (MPPD EPA 2021 v. 1.01) and its associated “Technical Support Documentation and User's Guide (External Review Draft)” will be discussed at a virtual external expert peer review meeting, which will be open to the public. In addition to the opportunity to submit written comments during the public comment period announced in this notice, the public will have an opportunity to make brief oral comments during the virtual expert peer panel meeting. For more information about the peer review meeting, including information about how to register, please visit:
Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with appointment only, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via the web at
Submit your materials identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2020-0564 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Pub. L. 94-475; Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1976.
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 April 22, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0068 and the specific case number for the chemical substance related to your comment, by using the
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit
This document provides the receipt and status reports for the period from 02/01/2021 to 02/28/2021. 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 initial submission, or an amendment, a notation of which version was received, the date the notice was received by EPA, the submitting manufacturer (
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
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of a new system of records.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission or Agency) proposes to add a new system
This system of records will become effective on March 23, 2021. Written comments on the routine uses are due by April 22, 2021. The routine uses will become effective on April 22, 2021, unless written comments are received that require a contrary determination.
Send comments to Margaret Drake at
Margaret Drake, 202-418-1707, or
Depending on the program, the FCC or the Universal Service Administrative Company, in conjunction with and under the supervision of the FCC, will collect and maintain documentation in the system of records to verify the identity and eligibility of certain individuals to participate as Stakeholders in the process, including information that may link individuals to particular properties and/or commercial interests (
FCC/WCB-4, Consumer Challenge Process.
Unclassified.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554; and Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), 700 12th Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005.
The FCC and, in some cases, USAC on behalf of and under the supervision of the FCC.
47 U.S.C. 151-154, 254; 47 CFR Sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.11.427, 54.310;
The Consumer Challenge Process system contains information to facilitate challenges to (1) Participant service reports under the DODC or other Commission adjustment programs, on a state-by-state basis, and
(2) Participants' defined deployment obligations (and associated support) under the USF. In this system, the Commission or USAC, on behalf of the Commission, will gather information to verify the identity of prospective Stakeholders and their direct interests in receiving certain services in the relevant locations. The submitted PII may link one or more individuals to locations and/or commercial interests and services relating to such locations. In some circumstances, prospective Stakeholders must certify that they do not hold a controlling interest in one or more competitors of the Participant that they are challenging.
The individuals in this system include actual and potential consumers of fixed or mobile broadband services; individuals challenging mobile coverage in a specific area; and individuals who submit information to verify their eligibility to challenge a Participant's location data.
The records in this system may include name, address, email address, phone number, partial Social Security Number (or Tribal Identification Number if no Social Security Number is available), requests for broadband services, commercial records associated with the receipt of residential services and utilities, home ownership, land use rights (including building development), government forms, statements, authorizations, and certifications. Further, such records may include information confirming that individuals do not have a controlling interest in one or more competitors of the Participant being challenged.
The information in the system is provided by individuals who are consumers of fixed or mobile broadband services, residents or property owners in areas where Participants have been authorized (or are eligible to be authorized) to receive universal service support through certain high-cost programs, and government agencies or other entities (
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside the FCC as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (b)(3) as follows:
1. Program Management—To USAC employees to conduct official duties associated with the management, operation, and oversight of the ELAP as directed by the Commission, including but not limited to, decisions to modify the number of locations (and associated
2. Third Party Contractors—To an employee of any third-party contractor engaged by USAC or the Commission to, among other things, develop IT systems or applications; conduct the Stakeholder eligibility verification process; verify the completeness and accuracy of Participants' coverage information; develop and maintain relevant maps; and, develop the Commission order modifying the Participants' defined deployment obligation.
3. Participants — Stakeholder challenge information, including Stakeholder contact information, geolocation, and other location information (
4. Stakeholders — For ELAP, Stakeholder contact information and certain other challenge information will be made available to other verified Stakeholders filing challenges in the same study area. Other Stakeholders include individuals, entities, and non-Federal agencies, including any State or local government, or agency thereof.
5. Public—Stakeholder geolocation information may be included on coverage maps published on the FCC and/or USAC websites.
6. Congressional Inquiries—To a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that Congressional office made at the written request of that individual.
7. Government-Wide Program Management and Oversight—To the Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain that department's advice regarding disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); or to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to obtain that office's advice regarding obligations under the Privacy Act.
8. Law Enforcement and Investigation—To appropriate Federal, State, local, or Tribal agencies, authorities, and officials responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, where the FCC becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of a civil or criminal statute, law, regulation, or order.
9. Adjudication and Litigation—To the Department of Justice (DOJ), or to a court or adjudicative body before which the FCC is authorized to appear, when: (a) The FCC or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of the FCC in his or her official capacity; or (c) any employee of the FCC in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ or the FCC have agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States is a party to litigation or have an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by the DOJ or the FCC is deemed by the FCC to be relevant and necessary to the litigation.
10. Breach Notification—To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (a) The Commission suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (b) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Commission (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
11. Assistance to Federal Agencies and Entities—To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Commission determines that information from this system is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in: (a) Responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, program, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
12. Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Disclosure—To Federal agencies, non-Federal entities, their employees, and agents (including contractors, their agents or employees; employees or contractors of the agents or designated agents); or contractors, their employees or agents with whom the FCC or USAC has a contract, service agreement, or cooperative agreement, for the purpose of: (1) Detection and prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse in Federal programs administered by a Federal agency or non-Federal entity; (2) detection of fraud, waste, and abuse by individuals in their operations and programs, but only to the extent that the information shared is necessary and relevant to verify and audit information necessary to determine whether the participant carrier has intentionally or through negligence, reduced its universal service obligations to exclude locations in eligible areas that are the most difficult and/or expensive to serve.
In addition to the routine uses listed above, the Commission may share information from this system of records with a consumer reporting agency regarding an individual who has not paid a valid and overdue debt owed to the Commission, following the procedures set out in the Debt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
The system is maintained in secure, limited access areas. Electronic files are maintained in the FCC or USAC network accreditation boundaries. Physical entry by unauthorized persons is restricted through use of locks, passwords, and other security measures. Paper documents and other physical records, if any, will be kept in locked, controlled access areas until digitized and then destroyed.
Information in this system can be retrieved by various identifiers, which may include Stakeholder name, Social Security Number (Tribal Identification Number if Social Security Number is not available), physical address, geolocation coordinates, property information, email address, telephone number, competitive interests, and supporting evidence.
1. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) established records schedule number DAA-0173-2017-0001-001 for the Universal Service High Cost Program Files. In accordance with this records schedule, the FCC and USAC, as appropriate, will maintain all information in the ELAP system of records for ten (10) years after cut-off, or when no longer needed for business or audit purposes, whichever comes later. Cut-off is determined as the end of the calendar year from the date an item is filed or prepared. Disposal of obsolete or out-of-date paper documents and files is by shredding only. Electronic data, files, and records are destroyed by electronic erasure in compliance with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidelines.
2. Information in this system of records that is not collected or maintained in connection with the CAF Program Files, including DODC challenge data, will be maintained in accordance with General Records Schedule 5.2, Item 20, which provides that records will be destroyed upon
1. ELAP-related data: The electronic data, records, and files will be stored within the High-Cost Broadband Portal (HCBP) system accreditation boundaries. The FCC will oversee the management of the HCBP system, including USAC's records management activities. After a Participant window for filing replies to Stakeholder information closes, access to the electronic files is restricted to the FCC staff and its contractors and subcontractors, as well as USAC and its contractors and subcontractors who carry out ELAP functions and activities. Other FCC employees and contractors and USAC employees, contractors, and subcontractors may be granted access only on a need-to-know basis. The data are protected by the FCC and USAC security safeguards, a comprehensive and dynamic set of information technology (IT) safety and security protocols and features that are designed to meet all Federal IT standards, including, but not limited to, those required by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and NIST.
Employees of the FCC and USAC may print paper copies of these ELAP electronic records for various short-term uses, as necessary. Paper copies will be stored in locked file cabinets when not in use. Physical entry by unauthorized persons where this information is stored is restricted through use of locks, passwords, and other security measures. Only authorized FCC and USAC employees may have access to these documents. Participants receiving access to the ELAP portion of the HCBP system will be prohibited from printing paper copies when such information contains PII, although they will be permitted to download redacted versions of such information.
2. Non-ELAP data: The electronic records, files, and data are stored within FCC accreditation boundaries. Access to the electronic files is restricted to IT staff, contractors, and vendors who maintain the networks and services. Other FCC employees, contractors, vendors, and users may be granted access on a need-to- know basis. The FCC's data are protected by the FCC and privacy safeguards, a comprehensive and dynamic set of IT safety and security protocols and features that are designed to meet all Federal IT privacy standards, including those required by FISMA, OMB, and NIST. Paper copies will be stored in locked file cabinets when not in use. Physical entry by unauthorized persons where this information is stored is restricted through use of locks, passwords, and other security measures. Only authorized FCC employees and contractors may have access to these documents.
Individuals wishing to request access to and/or amendment of records about themselves should follow the Notification Procedure below.
Individuals wishing to request access to and/or amendment of records about them should follow the Notification Procedure below.
Individuals wishing to determine whether this system of records contains information about them may do so by writing to Margaret Drake at
Individuals requesting access must also comply with the FCC's Privacy Act regulations regarding verification of identity and access to records (47 CFR part 0, subpart E).
None.
This is a new system of records.
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 April 7, 2021.
1.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than April 22, 2021.
1.
1.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Notice; correction.
The FRTIB published a document in the
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
In the
1. Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(4).”
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is requesting a 3-year extension of the ACF form ORR-0135 State Plan for Grants to States for Refugee Resettlement (OMB #0970-0351, expiration 3/31/2021). ORR is proposing changes to the form.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Changes proposed to the previously approved State Plan for Grants to States for Refugee Resettlement information collection are described below. ORR is proposing:
• Streamlining/formatting changes to multiple sections of the form including technical corrections to regulatory citations and removing a number of requirements related to the now obsolete Wilson-Fish Alternative Program (superseded by the Wilson-Fish TANF Coordination Program, which will have its own separate reporting requirements).
• Adding a number of requirements related to Replacement Designees (RDs) to ensure that they are administering the Refugee Resettlement Program with transparency and equity and to the same standard as a state, including quarterly consultation process, Refugee Medical Assistance, Unaccompanied Refugee Minors (URM), and emergency planning to ensure ORR populations receive all
• Requesting additional information related to the Refugee Support Services (RSS) program; ORR's current template does not provide sufficient detailed information for ORR to ascertain how a grantee intends to provide RSS services to its client base.
• Improving the URM section to correct inefficiencies, eliminate unnecessary items, and address the needs of victims of trafficking and Special Immigrant Juveniles now eligible for the URM program. In particular, ORR is soliciting states' and RDs' plans for placing children referred by ORR and ensuring alignment with federal capacity priorities.
8 U.S.C. 1522 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) [Title IV, Sec. 412 of the Act] for each state agency requesting federal funding for refugee resettlement under 8 U.S.C. 524 [Title IV, Sec. 414 of the Act].
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Correction of notice.
This document corrects an error that appeared in the notice published in the August 16, 2018,
Tracey Randolph at 240-453-8200.
In FR Doc. 2018-17615 of August 16, 2018 (83 FR 40774), there is an error involving the suite number in the address of the Office of Research Integrity. The error is identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section below.
In FR Doc. 2018-17615 of August 16, 2018 (83 FR 40774), make the following correction:
1. On page 40774, first column, last paragraph, in FR Doc. 2018-17615, correct the suite number in line 4 to read “Suite 240.”
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.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
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, with 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 April 22, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Pat Foster, (617) 913-6140 or
According to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
30-Day notice and request for comments; NEW information collection, 1670-NEW.
The Emergency Communications Division (ECD) within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. CISA previously published a notice about this ICR, in the
The comment period for the information collection request published on September 25, 2020 at 85 FR 60483 is extended. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 22, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
If additional information is required contact: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)—Robert Rhoads c/o Ralph Barnett III at (703) 705-6130,
On November 16, 2018, Congress passed Public Law 115-278, to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101
CISA enhances public safety interoperable communications at all levels of government to help partners across the country develop their emergency communications capabilities. Working with stakeholders across the country, CISA conducts extensive, nationwide outreach to support and promote the ability of emergency response providers and relevant government officials to continue to communicate in the event of a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster. Public Law 109-296, Title VI, 671(b), Title XVIII, 1801(c)(2) mandates DHS through CISA to administrate and manage SAFECOM, a state, local, tribal, and territorial stakeholder-driven public safety communications program. In an effort to resolve major communications issues identified during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, SAFECOM was created as a Presidential E-Government Initiative to improve interoperability, allowing emergency responders to communicate more effectively before, during, and after emergencies and disasters.
The SAFECOM Membership Questionnaire is an internal SAFECOM document disseminated only to active SAFECOM Members. SAFECOM uses the Questionnaire to identify membership gaps, obtain updated information on SAFECOM's membership body (
The DHS/CISA/ECD will disseminate the SAFECOM Membership Questionnaire to active SAFECOM Members as a fillable PDF document. SAFECOM intends to use the Questionnaire to examine its Membership body, identify membership gaps obtain updated information on SAFECOM's membership body (
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, DHS.
60-Day notice and request for comments; revision of information collection request: 1670-0014.
The Infrastructure Security Division (ISD) within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is issuing a 60-day notice and request for comments to revise Information Collection Request (ICR) 1670-0014. CISA will submit the ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are due May 24, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number CISA-2021-0003 through the Federal eRulemaking Portal available at
Do not submit comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI), Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII), or Sensitive Security Information (SSI) directly to the public regulatory docket. Contact the individual listed in the
Lona Saccomando, 703-235-5263,
The CFATS Program identifies chemical facilities of interest and regulates the security of high-risk chemical facilities through a risk-based approach. The CFATS Program is authorized under the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014
This instrument collects information to support a facility's request for redetermination of high-risk which CISA is obligated to perform pursuant to the CFATS Act of 2014. The collection of information may be concurrent with a facility's submission of a Top-Screen pursuant to 6 CFR 27.210(d) or collected after CISA reviews a Top-Screen that reflects material modifications made by the facility. This instrument authorizes CISA to collect both the reason for the redetermination as well as supporting documentation.
CISA is proposing minor revisions to the instrument that reflect the passage of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Act of 2018, 6 U.S.C. 651-74, such as updating the Agency name to conform with the Agency's new designation as CISA, as well as a clearer description of the scope of the instrument. The scope of this instrument remains unchanged.
The current information collection estimated that 625 respondents would submit a request for a Request for Redetermination annually. Based on data collected between CY 2018-2020, 215 respondents, on average, submitted a Request for Redetermination annually. Because of the historical pattern of lower submissions over the past three years, CISA proposes to decrease the estimated number of respondents from 625 to 250 respondents. CISA will retain the number of responses per respondent of 1.0.
In the current information collection, the estimated time per respondent to prepare and submit a Request for Redetermination is 0.25 hours (15 minutes). CISA continues to believe this is a reasonable burden estimate for this instrument.
The annual burden hours for a Request for Redetermination is [0.25 hours × 250 respondents × 1 response per respondent], which equals 62.5 hours.
CISA provides access to CSAT free of charge and assumes that each respondent already has computer hardware and access to the internet for basic business needs. Therefore, there are no annualized capital or start-up costs incurred by chemical facilities of interest or high-risk chemical facilities for this information collection.
There are no recordkeeping burden costs incurred by chemical facilities of interest or high-risk chemical facilities for this information collection.
CISA assumes that Site Security Officers (SSOs) are responsible for submitting a Request for Redetermination. For the purpose of this notice, CISA maintains this assumption.
Therefore, to estimate the total annual burden, CISA multiplied the annual burden of 62.5 hours by the average hourly wage rate of SSOs which is $85.82 per hour.
This instrument collects information to request extensions for CFATS reporting requirements.
CISA is proposing minor revisions to the instrument that reflect the passage of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Act of 2018, 6 U.S.C. 651-74, such as updating the Agency name to conform with the Agency's new designation as CISA, as well as a clearer description of the scope of the instrument. The scope of this instrument remains unchanged.
The current information collection estimated that 730 respondents would submit a request for a Request for an Extension annually. Based on data collected between CY 2018-2020, 374 respondents, on average, submitted a Request for an Extension annually. In addition, there was also a slight increase in the number of times a respondent would request an extension. Because of the historical pattern of lower submissions over the past three years with a slight increase in the number of responses per respondent, CISA proposes to decrease the estimated number of respondents from 730 to 400 respondents and increase the number of responses per respondent from 1.00 to 1.25.
In the current information collection, the estimated time per respondent to prepare and submit a Request for an Extension is 0.083 hours (5 minutes). CISA continues to believe this is a reasonable burden for gathering and providing supporting documentation for this instrument.
The annual burden hours for the Request for an Extension is [0.083 hours × 400 respondents × 1.25 response per respondent], which equals 41.7 hours.
CISA provides access to CSAT free of charge and assumes that each respondent already has computer hardware and access to the internet for basic business needs. Therefore, there are no annualized capital or start-up costs incurred by chemical facilities of interest or high-risk chemical facilities for this information collection.
There are no recordkeeping burden costs incurred by chemical facilities of interest or high-risk chemical facilities for this information collection.
CISA assumes that SSOs are responsible for submitting a Request for an Extension. For the purpose of this notice, CISA maintains this assumption.
Therefore, to estimate the total annual burden, CISA multiplied the annual burden of 41.7 hours by the average hourly wage rate of SSOs, which is $85.82 per hour. Therefore, the total annual burden cost for the Request for an Extension instrument is $3,576 (
This instrument collects information about the reason a facility submits an updated Top-Screen (
CISA is proposing minor revisions to the instrument that reflect the passage of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Act of 2018, 6 U.S.C. 651-74, such as updating the Agency name to conform with the Agency's new designation as CISA, as well as a clearer description of the scope this instrument. The scope of this instrument remains unchanged.
The current information collection estimated that 1,250 respondents would submit a request for a Top-Screen Update annually. Based on data collected between CY 2018-2020, 2,353 respondents, on average, submitted a Top-Screen Update annually. Because of the historical pattern of higher submissions, CISA proposes to increase the estimated number of respondents from 1,250 to 2,500 respondents. CISA will retain the number of responses per respondent of 1.5.
In the current information collection, the estimated time per respondent to prepare and submit a Top-Screen Update is 0.083 hours (5 minutes). CISA continues to believe this is a reasonable burden per response for this instrument.
The annual burden hours for a Top-Screen Update is [0.083 hours × 2,500 respondents × 1.5 responses per respondent], which equals 312.5 hours.
CISA provides access to CSAT free of charge and assumes that each respondent already has computer hardware and access to the internet for basic business needs. Therefore, there are no annualized capital or start-up costs incurred by chemical facilities of interest or high-risk chemical facilities for this information collection.
There are no recordkeeping burden costs incurred by chemical facilities of interest or high-risk chemical facilities for this information collection.
CISA assumes that SSOs are responsible for submitting a Top-Screen Update. For the purpose of this notice, CISA maintains this assumption.
Therefore, to estimate the total annual burden, CISA multiplied the annual burden of 312.5 hours by the average hourly wage rate of SSOs, which is $85.82 per hour. Therefore, the total annual burden cost for the Top-Screen Update instrument is $26,818 (
This instrument collects information when a facility requests a consultation or seeks technical assistance about its CFATS regulatory requirements. This instrument also collects information to respond to potentially non-compliant facilities; verify material modifications during the redetermination process; or follow-up on security issues or results of a recent incident.
CISA is proposing minor revisions to the instrument that reflect the passage of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Act of 2018, 6 U.S.C. 651-74, such as updating the Agency name to conform with the Agency's new designation as CISA, as well as a clearer description of the scope instrument. The scope of this instrument remains unchanged.
The current information collection estimated that 455 respondents would submit a request for Compliance Assistance annually. Based on data collected between CY 2018-2020, 1,540 respondents, on average, submitted a request for Compliance Assistance annually. Because of the historical pattern of higher submissions, CISA proposes to increase the estimated number of respondents from 455 to 1,600 respondents. CISA previously estimated a response rate of 1.5 requests per respondent annually; however, based on the historical pattern of requests for Compliance Assistance, CISA proposes to decrease the number of responses per respondent to 1.0.
In the current information collection, the estimated time per respondent to prepare and submit a Request for Compliance Assistance is 0.083 hours (5 minutes). CISA continues to believe this
The annual burden hours for the Compliance Assistance instrument is [0.083 hours × 1,600 respondents × 1.0 responses per respondent], which equals 133.3 hours.
CISA assumes that each respondent already has computer hardware and access to the internet for basic business needs. Therefore, there are no annualized capital or start-up costs incurred by chemical facilities of interest or high-risk chemical facilities for this information collection.
There are no recordkeeping burden costs incurred by chemical facilities of interest or high-risk chemical facilities for this information collection.
CISA assumes that SSOs are responsible for submitting a Compliance Assistance. For the purpose of this notice, CISA maintains this assumption.
Therefore, to estimate the total annual burden, CISA multiplied the annual burden of 133.3 hours by the average hourly wage rate of SSOs, which is $85.82 per hour. Therefore, the total annual burden cost for the Compliance Assistance instrument is $11,443 (
This instrument collects information when a facility notifies CISA that it is not required to register in CSAT or submit a Top-Screen.
CISA is proposing minor revisions to the instrument that reflect the passage of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Act of 2018, 6 U.S.C. 651-74, such as updating the Agency name to conform with the Agency's new designation as CISA, as well as a clearer description of the scope instrument. The scope of this instrument remains unchanged.
The current information collection estimated that 480 respondents would submit a Declaration of Reporting Status annually. Based on data collected between CY 2018-2020, 20 respondents, on average, submitted a Declaration of Reporting Status annually. Because of the historical pattern of lower submissions, CISA proposes to decrease the estimated number of respondents from 480 to 100 respondents. CISA will retain the number of responses per respondent of 1.0.
In the current information collection, the estimated time per respondent to prepare and submit a Declaration of Reporting Status is 0.25 hours (15 minutes). CISA continues to believe this is a reasonable burden estimate for this instrument.
The annual burden hours for the Declaration of Reporting Status is [0.25 hours × 100 respondents × 1 response per respondent], which equals 25 hours.
CISA assumes that each respondent already has computer hardware and access to the internet for basic business needs. Therefore, there are no annualized capital or start-up costs incurred by chemical facilities of interest or high-risk chemical facilities for this information collection.
There are no recordkeeping burden costs incurred by chemical facilities of interest or high-risk chemical facilities for this information collection.
CISA maintains the assumption found in the other instruments within this Information Collection that SSOs are responsible for submitting information to CISA. Thus, CISA assumes that an SSO will submit the Declaration of Reporting Status.
Therefore, to estimate the total annual burden, CISA multiplied the annual burden of 25 hours by the average hourly wage rate of SSOs, which is $85.82 per hour. Therefore, the total annual burden cost for the Declaration of Reporting Status instrument is $2,145 (
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
30-Day notice and request for comments; NEW collection (request for a new OMB control number, 1670-NEW.
The External Affairs (EA) within the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) will submit the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
CISA previously published a notice about this ICR, in the
The comment period for the information collection request published on December 18, 2020 at 85 FR 82497. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 22, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Marilyn Stackhouse, 202-380-7504,
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-278) created the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). CISA is responsible for protecting the Nation's critical infrastructure from physical and cyber threats. This mission requires effective coordination and collaboration from government and private sector organizations. As part of the collaboration efforts, CISA receives requests for CISA employees to give presentations and speeches at various events.
This digital collection of information is necessary to ensure an efficient and timely process to schedule outreach and engagement with CISA stakeholders. This information may be disclosed as generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 522.
The Speaker Request Form will be the first point of contact between CISA and the public to initiate CISA speaking engagements. The form will be available on
The information is used to determine if accepting the request will further CISA's mission. The CISA Speakers Bureau team will use the information to identify a speaker and route the Speakers Request Form to that person for consideration. Confirmed CISA speaking engagements are then sent to DHS Public Affairs for awareness.
The form will be available on
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to renew an information collection for cave management.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 24, 2021.
Send your written comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Darrin King, Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Attention PRA Office, 440 W 200 S #500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Kyle Rybacki by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised and continuing collections of information. This helps the BLM assess impacts of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand BLM information collection requirements and ensure requested data are provided in the desired format.
The BLM is especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including if the information will have practical utility;
(2) determination of the accuracy of the BLM's estimate of the burden for collection of information, including validity of methodology and assumptions used;
(3) methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information to be collected; and
(4) how the agency can minimize the burden of information collection on those who respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. The BLM will include or summarize each comment in its request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you 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.
• Federal and state governmental agencies;
• Bona fide educational and research institutions; and
• Individuals and organizations assisting a land management agency with cave management activities.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before March 13, 2021, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted electronically by April 7, 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 March 13, 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:
Nomination submitted by Federal Preservation Officer:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is proposing to renew an information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 22, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior within 30 days of publication of this notice at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Anna Atkinson by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, BOEM provides the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps BOEM assess the impact of the information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand BOEM's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
There has been no leasing activity in the OCS for minerals other than oil, gas, or sulfur under these regulations for many years, so BOEM has not generally collected information under this part of its regulations. However, because 30 CFR part 581 contains information collections that are regulatory requirements and because there is no restriction on leasing for such minerals, the potential exists for information to be collected. Therefore, BOEM is requesting that OMB renew its previous approval for this information collection.
BOEM will use the information required by 30 CFR part 581 to determine if statutory requirements are met prior to the issuance of a lease. Specifically, BOEM will use the information to:
• Evaluate the area and minerals for which a lease is being considered to assess the viability of offering leases for sale;
• Request the adjacent State(s) to initiate the establishment of a joint task force to assess the proposed action;
• Ensure excessive overriding royalty interests are not created in a lease that would put economic constraints on all parties involved;
• Document that a lease or any part thereof has been surrendered by the record title holder; and
• Determine if activities on the proposed lease area(s) will have a significant impact on the environment.
A
BOEM is again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described above.
BOEM is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of BOEM; (2) what can BOEM do to ensure this information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might BOEM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might BOEM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including minimizing the burden through the use of information technology?
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. BOEM will include or summarize each comment in its request to OMB for approval of this ICR. You should be aware that your entire comment—including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifying information—may be made publicly disclosed. In order to inform BOEM's decision on whether it can withhold from disclosure your personally identifiable information, you must identify any information contained in your comments that, if released, would clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of your privacy, and briefly describe possible harmful consequences of disclosing that information, such as embarrassment, injury, or other harm. While you can ask BOEM in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public disclosure, BOEM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
BOEM protects proprietary information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), and the Department of the Interior's FOIA implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on January 19, 2021, under section 337 of
The complaint, as amended, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine:
(a) Whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 18, 19, and 21 of the '015 patents and claims 1, 4-6, 16, 19, 23, 24, 26, 29, and 30 of the '024 patent;
(b) whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(C) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of the '656 mark and the '749 mark; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(c) the decision to institute shall not preclude the presiding Administrative Law Judge from severing the (a)(1)(B) and (a)(1)(C) allegations in the investigation pursuant to section 210.14(h) of the Commission's rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.14(h).
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “portable, battery-powered devices that are used to jump-start batteries such as those in automobiles, trucks, and other vehicles, and related components, namely battery cables and clamps”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: The NOCO Company, 30339 Diamond Parkway #102, Glenwillow, OH 44139.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 22, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until April 22, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published, allowing a 60-day comment period. BJS received four comments in response. The responses were all favorable to the reinstatement of the CPFFCL program and emphasized the utility of the CPFFCL program to the field.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until April 22, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Extension of comment period.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is in the process of developing a new strategic plan for the years 2022-2026. The NEA Office of Research & Analysis is soliciting public input to inform the development of the NEA 2022-2026 Strategic Plan. Through this Request for Comments, the NEA invites ideas and insights from the general public, including arts organizations, artists, arts educators, state and local arts agencies, other arts funders and policy-makers, researchers, and individuals and groups outside the arts sector. In the summer of 2021, stakeholders will have a second opportunity to provide comments and input in response to the drafted version of the NEA 2022-2026 Strategic Plan.
The due date for public comments requested in the
Send comments to Sunil Iyengar, National Endowment for the Arts, via email (
Established by Congress in 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts is an independent federal agency, providing funding and support to give Americans the opportunity to participate in the arts, exercise their imaginations, and develop their creative capacities. Currently, the NEA supports arts organizations and artists in every Congressional district in the country.
On March 10, 2021 the National Endowment for the Arts posted a Request for Comments, seeking public input to guide the development of the agency's 2022-2026 Strategic Plan (86 FR 13760). The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on Friday, March 26, 2021. The National Endowment for the Arts is extending the public comment period until Wednesday, March 31, 2021 to allow members of the public more time to submit their input and comments.
As a federal agency, the National Endowment for the Arts is required to establish a new strategic plan every four years. The Strategic Plan sets key priorities for the agency and presents management-focused objectives and strategies. The NEA's most recent strategic plan covers the years 2018-2022, and can be found online here:
The NEA is seeking public input and comments from a broad array of stakeholders (see
The NEA is particularly interested in how these elements should be viewed in light of new and emerging challenges and opportunities, among other contextual factors.
Examples of these factors include, but are not limited to:
• The post-pandemic recovery of the arts sector;
• Changes in work-and-leisure patterns;
• The rise of virtual engagement in the arts;
• Growing integration of the arts with other sectors (
• Greater public attention to issues of diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and social justice.
5 U.S.C. 306.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Monthly notice.
Pursuant to section 189.a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular monthly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (NSHC), notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This monthly notice includes all amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from February 5, 2021, to March 4, 2021. The last monthly notice was published on February 23, 2021.
Comments must be filed by April 22, 2021. A request for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by May 24, 2021.
You may submit comments by any of the following method; 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
Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-1506, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0068, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
For the facility-specific amendment requests shown below, the Commission finds that the licensees' analyses provided, consistent with title 10 of
The Commission is seeking public comments on these proposed determinations. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determinations.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue any of these license amendments before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves NSHC. In addition, the Commission may issue any of these amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action on any of these amendments prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by any of these actions may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to that action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions that the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of NSHC, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of NSHC. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves NSHC, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a petition is submitted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
The table below provides the plant name, docket number, date of application, ADAMS accession number, and location in the application of the licensees' proposed NSHC determinations. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the applications for amendment, which are available for public inspection in ADAMS. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
During the period since publication of the last monthly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed NSHC determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated in the safety evaluation for the amendment.
For further details with respect to each action, see the amendment and associated documents such as the Commission's letter and safety evaluation, which may be obtained using the ADAMS accession numbers indicated in the table below.
The safety evaluation will provide the ADAMS accession numbers for the application for amendment and the
The following notice was previously published as separate individual notice. It was published as an individual notice either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this monthly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. It is repeated here because the monthly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving NSHC.
For details, including the applicable notice period, see the individual notice in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of March 22, 29, April 5, 12, 19, 26, 2021.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 22, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 29, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 5, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 19, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 26, 2021.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “General Domestic Licenses for Byproduct Material.”
Submit comments by May 24, 2021. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0250 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; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to expand the existing Financial Product Distribution Program (the “Program”) to provide for a Derived Data Platform Service. Additionally, the proposal seeks to enhance the Program to provide for the distribution of data derived from the Cboe Aggregated Market (“Cboe One”)
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to implement a pricing structure that would reduce fees charged to Distributors of “Derived Data”, as defined below, through a Derived Data Platform Service. Additionally, the proposal seeks to enhance the Program to permit the distribution of data derived from Cboe One Summary through the existing White Label Service, Application Programming Interface (“API”) Service, and the proposed Platform Service.
Under the current Program, a Distributor may subscribe to one of two Derived Data Service options, White Label Service or API Service. As discussed in further detail below, the Exchange proposes to introduce a third Derived Data Service option called the Platform Service. Furthermore, the Exchange seeks to offer Cboe One Summary
Generally, the recipient of an Exchange data product that distributes that data outside of its own firm is subject to External Distribution
The Exchange currently offers a White Label Service and an API Service that allow Distributors to benefit from certain discounted External Distribution Fees and User Fees for EDGX Top data. Instead of the regular fee for External Distribution of Exchange data, Distributors of Derived Data under both the White Label Service and API Service are charged a tiered External Subscriber Fee based on the number of External Subscribers that receive Derived Data from the Distributor.
The White Label Service is a type of hosted display solution in which a Distributor hosts, maintains, and controls a website or platform on behalf of a third-party entity. The service allows Distributors to make Derived Data available on a platform that is branded with a third-party brand, or co-branded with a third-party and a Distributor, while the Distributor maintains control of the applications data, entitlements and display. Alternatively, the API Service is a type of data feed distribution in which a Distributor delivers an API or similar distribution mechanism to a third-party entity for use within one or more platforms. The API Service allows Distributors to provide Derived Data to a third-party entity for use within one or more downstream platforms that are operated and maintained by the third-party entity. The Distributor maintains control of the entitlements, but does not maintain technical control of the usage or the display.
Now, the Exchange is proposing to implement a third service under the Program, the Platform Service. Under the Platform Service, a Distributor could receive either EDGX Top, or as discussed in further detail below, Cboe One Summary data. The Exchange data provided to Distributors under the Platform Service would be identical to Exchange data provided to Distributors under both the White Label and API Services. In contrast to the White Label and API Services, the Platform Service would allow a Distributor to provide derivative products directly to users that are hosted within their infrastructure rather than to third-party entities who in turn provide derivative products to their end users. The Platform Service would be strictly limited to derivative products based in whole or in part on Exchange data where only user remote access is permitted.
As discussed above, distributors of EDGX Top may normally be subject to External Distribution and User Fees. Under the proposed Platform Service, Distributors would be liable for the normally applicable External Distribution and User Fees listed above except for the Non-Professional User fee.
Like the existing White Label Service and API Service, the proposed Platform Service would be entirely optional, in that it would only apply to Distributors that opt to use Derived Data to create a Platform Service, as described herein. It would not impact or raise the cost of any other Exchange product, nor would it affect the cost of Exchange data, except in instances where Derived Data is made available on a Platform Service. A Distributor that provides a Platform Service for Exchange data that is not Derived Data or distributes Derived Data through a platform other than a White Label Service, API Service, or Platform Service would be liable for the fees normally applicable for the distribution of Exchange data.
In addition to the above, the Exchange is proposing to adopt fees for the distribution of data derived from Cboe One Summary under the existing White Label Service and API Service, as well as the proposed Platform Service. Specifically, the Exchange is now proposing a fee amendment to allow Distributors that participate in the Program to create Derived Data from Cboe One Summary in addition to EDGX Top. Therefore, Distributors of Derived Data created from Cboe One Summary could display information or data or create derivative instruments based on top of book information across the four Cboe equity exchanges rather than just EDGX. The Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance the Program as the inclusion of Cboe One Summary will allow Distributors to create Derived Data that is based on a more comprehensive view of the U.S. equities market.
As noted above, Distributors of Cboe One Summary data may be subject to the normal External Distribution Fees, User Fees, and the Data Consolidation Fee. As proposed, a Distributor that provides Derived Data from Cboe One Summary externally would be liable for the proposed fees discussed below instead of the fees normally applicable for the External Distribution of Cboe One Summary. Existing fees for EDGX Top Derived Data within a White Label Service or API Service are comprised of a tiered fee based on the number of External Subscribers, a monthly fee for each Professional User, and include no fee for Non-Professional Users. Alternatively, the proposed fees for the Platform Service are comprised of the normal External Distribution and Professional User Fees applicable for the distribution of EDGX Top except that they would not be subject to the Non-Professional Users fees normally applicable. The Exchange proposes to adopt a similar fee structure for Cboe One Summary Derived Data for the White Label Service, the API Service, and the Platform Service discussed above with the addition of the Data Consolidation Fee that would be applicable to each Service option.
As proposed, Distributors would be charged the following fees for a White Label Service for Cboe One Summary Derived Data: (1) $1,000 per month for each External Subscriber if the Distributor makes Derived Data available to 1-5 External Subscribers; (2) $750 per month for each External Subscriber if the Distributor makes Derived Data available to 6-10 External Subscribers; and (3) $500 per month for each External Subscriber if the Distributor makes Derived Data available to 11 or more External Subscribers. For example, a Distributor providing White Label Derived Data based on Cboe One Summary to six External Subscribers would be charged a monthly fee of $4,500 (
Alternatively, Distributors would be charged the following fees for an API Service for Cboe One Summary Derived Data: (1) $5,000 per month for each External Subscriber if the Distributor makes Derived Data available to 1-5 External Subscribers; (2) $4,000 per month for each External Subscriber if the Distributor makes Derived Data available to 6-20 External Subscribers; and (3) $3,000 per month for each External Subscriber if the Distributor makes Derived Data available to 11 or more External Subscribers. For example, a Distributor providing API Service Derived Data based on Cboe One Summary to six External Subscribers would be charged a monthly fee of $24,000 (
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to adopt fees for the proposed Platform Service for Cboe One Summary data in addition to the proposed fees for EDGX Top discussed above. Like the proposed fee for EDGX Top Derived Data, Distributors of Cboe One Summary Derived Data would be liable for the fees normally applicable for the external distribution of Cboe One Summary, except for the Non-Professional User fee, and the Data Consolidation Fee. Therefore, under the Platform Service, Distributors of Cboe One Summary Derived Data would be liable for the External Distribution Fee ($5,000/month) and Professional User Fee ($10/month) and the Data Consolidation Fee.
Based on the proposed amendments discussed above, the Exchange proposes several clarifying modifications to the Fee Schedule. First, the Exchange proposes to add a definition of “Platform Service” to the Market Data Fees definitions section of the Fee Schedule. The definition would provide that “a Platform Service is a type of hosted display solution in which a Distributor provides derivative products to Platform Service Data Users within their infrastructure. The service allows Distributors to make Derived Data available as part of a platform, providing users remote access to derivative products based in whole or in part on Exchange data.”
The Exchange also proposes to amend explanatory asterisks provided under the Program in the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the paragraph following the first asterisk to reference the proposed Platform Service in addition to the existing references to the White Label Service and API Service. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to add references to Cboe One Summary after all references to EDGX Top in the paragraph following the first asterisk. The Exchange also proposes to add additional examples to asterisks two and three so as to explain the application of fees for Derived Data from Cboe One Summary. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to add an additional asterisk to state that Cboe One Summary data would be subject to the Data Consolidation fee set forth in the Fee Schedule. These proposed changes would provide clarity in the Fee Schedule based on the addition of the Platform Service and Cboe One Summary proposed herein.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change would further broaden the availability of U.S. equity market data to investors, consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are 16 registered national securities exchanges that trade U.S. equities and have the capability to offer associated top of book market data products to their customers. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, 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.”
As discussed above, the proposed Platform Service would eliminate the Non-Professional User Fee to Distributors that is normally applied for the External Distribution of Exchange data. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to introduce reduced fees for the use of Derived Data on Platform Services as the proposed fee reduction would facilitate cost effective access to market information that is used primarily to create and display certain derivative instruments rather than to display the underlying U.S. equity securities. The proposed Platform Service fees are constrained by competition, and it is this competition that is driving the proposed fee change. Indeed, the Program is designed to allow the Exchange to compete more effectively for market data distributors that purchase market information to offer Derived Data to investors.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to enhance the Program by expanding Exchange data offered under the Program to include Cboe One Summary as doing so will allow Distributors to create Derived Data that is based on a more comprehensive view of the U.S. equities market. Because Exchange data in this context is primarily purchased for the creation of Derived Data encompassing certain derivative instruments, Distributors do not require a consolidated view of the market across multiple exchanges, and will generally purchase such data from a single or select few exchange(s) for their purposes. As noted above, Cboe One Summary includes top of book quotation and transaction data across all four Cboe equity exchanges, which would allow Distributors to create more meaningful Derived Data than that available from a single exchange's market data at a potentially reduced price.
The existence of alternatives to the Program ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory fees, as subscribers are free to elect such alternatives. That is, the Exchange competes with other exchanges that provide similar top of book and/or consolidated top of book products and pricing programs for Derived Data.
The proposed rule change would provide an optional fee structure for Distributors to use Exchange data to make Derived Data available to Non-Professional Users via a Platform Service at a reduced fee. As proposed, if a Distributor uses a Platform Service to distribute Derived Data, the Distributor would be charged the normal applicable External Distribution Fees and User Fees excluding the Non-Professional User Fee. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge a fee for Professional Users but no fee for Non-Professional Users. Non-Professional Users are already subject to a heavily discounted fee for EDGX Top market data relative to Professional Users. Differential fees for Professional and Non-Professional Users are widely used by the Exchange and other exchanges for their proprietary market data as this reduces costs for retail investors and makes market data more broadly available. The Exchange believes that eliminating fees for Non-Professional Users that access Derived Data from Distributors pursuant to the Program is consistent with longstanding precedent indicating that it is consistent with the Act to provide reasonable incentives to retail investors that rely on the public markets for their investment needs.
The proposed rule change would also provide Distributors the option to create Derived Data from Cboe One Summary, and benefit from reduced fees for that product under the Financial Product Distribution Program, in addition to the currently available EDGX Top. The proposed fees would only apply to Distributors that elect to create Derived Data from Cboe One Summary. Similar to the fee structure for EDGX Top under the Program, no fee would be assessed for Non-Professional Users of Derived Data from Cboe One Summary. For the same reasons discussed above, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge a fee for Professional Users but no fee for Non-Professional Users. Further, the proposed fee would only apply to Distributors that elect to participate in the Program by distributing Derived Data from Cboe One Summary. Exchange market data is distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data available. Although the proposed pricing for Cboe One Summary differs from the pricing currently in place for EDGX Top, the Exchange also believes that its pricing reflects the relative benefits provided to Distributors that provide Derived Data based on market information from all four Cboe equities exchanges. For example, the proposed fee for one to five External Subscribers of Derived Data based on Cboe One Summary using the API Service is equal to the aggregate standard External Distribution Fee across the Cboe equities exchange Top feeds, and is also equal to the standard External Distribution Fee for Cboe One Summary (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price these data products is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar data products, and pricing options, to their customers. Top of book data is broadly disseminated by competing U.S. equities exchanges. There are therefore a number of alternative products available to market participants and investors. In this competitive environment potential subscribers are free to choose which competing product to purchase to satisfy their need for market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as broker-dealers or vendors look to purchase the lowest priced top of book data product, or quality, as market participants seek to purchase data that represents significant market liquidity. In order to better compete for this segment of the market, the Exchange is proposing to reduce fees charged to Distributors that distribute
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants. The proposed fees would apply equally to external distributors of EDGX Top or Cboe One Summary that make Derived Data available through one of the three Service options offered by the Exchange under the Program. The continued difference in fees under the Program as compared to the normal External Distribution fees for both EDGX Top and Cboe One Summary are appropriate given that External Subscribers and Users receive Derived Data, which by definition cannot be readily reverse‐engineered to recreate EDGX Top or Cboe One Summary data or used to create other data that is a reasonable facsimile or substitute for EDGX Top or Cboe One Summary. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed fees neither favor nor penalize one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition. The proposed Platform Service fees would apply to data derived from EDGX Top and Cboe One Summary, which are subject to competition from exchanges that offer similar products, including but not limited to those that choose to provide similar pricing options for Derived Data. A number of national securities exchanges, including the Exchange, its affiliated Cboe U.S. equities exchanges, and the Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (“Nasdaq”) offer pricing discounts for Derived Data today. These pricing programs reduce the cost of accessing top of book market information that is used, among other things, to create derivative instruments rather than to trade U.S. equity securities. Specifically, the Nasdaq Derived Data Enterprise license covers the Distributor of the Derived Data to their own users, while the Exchange's current Derived Data programs currently do not cover the Distributor of the Derived Data. In order to better compete for this segment of the market, the Exchange is proposing to expand the Program to include a Derived Data Platform Service, which would allow the Distributors of Derived Data to benefit from discounted pricing when providing the Derived Data to their own end users. Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to enhance the Program by providing a fee structure for Cboe One Summary, which would allow Distributors to create Derived Data that is based on a more comprehensive view of the U.S. equities market. The Exchange does not believe that the proposal would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition as other exchanges and data vendors are free to lower their prices to better compete with the Exchange's offering. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is pro-competitive as it seeks to offer pricing incentives to customers to better position the Exchange as it competes to attract additional market data subscribers.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to expand the existing Financial Product Distribution Program (the “Program”) to provide for a Derived Data Platform Service. Additionally, the proposal seeks to enhance the Program to provide for the distribution of data derived from the Cboe Aggregated Market (“Cboe One”)
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to implement a pricing structure that would reduce fees charged to Distributors of “Derived Data”, as defined below, through a Derived Data Platform Service. Additionally, the proposal seeks to enhance the Program to permit the distribution of data derived from Cboe One Summary through the existing White Label Service, Application Programming Interface (“API”) Service, and the proposed Platform Service.
Under the current Program, a Distributor may subscribe to one of two Derived Data Service options, White Label Service or API Service. As discussed in further detail below, the Exchange proposes to introduce a third Derived Data Service option called the Platform Service. Furthermore, the Exchange seeks to offer Cboe One Summary
Generally, the recipient of an Exchange data product that distributes that data outside of its own firm is subject to External Distribution
The Exchange currently offers a White Label Service and an API Service that allow Distributors to benefit from certain discounted External Distribution Fees and User Fees for BZX Top data. Instead of the regular fee for External Distribution of Exchange data, Distributors of Derived Data under both the White Label Service and API Service are charged a tiered External Subscriber Fee based on the number of External Subscribers that receive Derived Data from the Distributor.
The White Label Service is a type of hosted display solution in which a Distributor hosts, maintains, and controls a website or platform on behalf of a third-party entity. The service allows Distributors to make Derived Data available on a platform that is branded with a third-party brand, or co-branded with a third-party and a Distributor, while the Distributor maintains control of the applications data, entitlements and display. Alternatively, the API Service is a type of data feed distribution in which a Distributor delivers an API or similar distribution mechanism to a third-party entity for use within one or more platforms. The API Service allows Distributors to provide Derived Data to a third-party entity for use within one or more downstream platforms that are operated and maintained by the third-party entity. The Distributor maintains control of the entitlements, but does not maintain technical control of the usage or the display.
Now, the Exchange is proposing to implement a third service under the Program, the Platform Service. Under the Platform Service, a Distributor could receive either BZX Top, or as discussed in further detail below, Cboe One Summary data. The Exchange data provided to Distributors under the Platform Service would be identical to Exchange data provided to Distributors under both the White Label and API Services. In contrast to the White Label and API Services, the Platform Service would allow a Distributor to provide derivative products directly to users that are hosted within their infrastructure rather than to third-party entities who in turn provide derivative products to their end users. The Platform Service would be strictly limited to derivative products based in whole or in part on Exchange data where only user remote access is permitted.
As discussed above, distributors of BZX Top may normally be subject to External Distribution and User Fees. Under the proposed Platform Service, Distributors would be liable for the normally applicable External Distribution and User Fees listed above except for the Non-Professional User fee.
Like the existing White Label Service and API Service, the proposed Platform Service would be entirely optional, in that it would only apply to Distributors that opt to use Derived Data to create a Platform Service, as described herein. It would not impact or raise the cost of any other Exchange product, nor would it affect the cost of Exchange data, except in instances where Derived Data is made available on a Platform Service. A Distributor that provides a Platform Service for Exchange data that is not Derived Data or distributes Derived Data through a platform other than a White Label Service, API Service, or Platform Service would be liable for the fees normally applicable for the distribution of Exchange data.
In addition to the above, the Exchange is proposing to adopt fees for the distribution of data derived from Cboe One Summary under the existing White Label Service and API Service, as well as the proposed Platform Service. Specifically, the Exchange is now proposing a fee amendment to allow Distributors that participate in the Program to create Derived Data from Cboe One Summary in addition to BZX Top. Therefore, Distributors of Derived Data created from Cboe One Summary could display information or data or create derivative instruments based on top of book information across the four Cboe equity exchanges rather than just BZX. The Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance the Program as the inclusion of Cboe One Summary will allow Distributors to create Derived Data that is based on a more comprehensive view of the U.S. equities market.
As noted above, Distributors of Cboe One Summary data may be subject to the normal External Distribution Fees, User Fees, and the Data Consolidation Fee. As proposed, a Distributor that provides Derived Data from Cboe One Summary externally would be liable for the proposed fees discussed below instead of the fees normally applicable for the External Distribution of Cboe One Summary. Existing fees for BZX Top Derived Data within a White Label Service or API Service are comprised of a tiered fee based on the number of External Subscribers, a monthly fee for each Professional User, and include no fee for Non-Professional Users.
As proposed, Distributors would be charged the following fees for a White Label Service for Cboe One Summary Derived Data: (1) $1,000 per month for each External Subscriber if the Distributor makes Derived Data available to 1-5 External Subscribers; (2) $750 per month for each External Subscriber if the Distributor makes Derived Data available to 6-10 External Subscribers; and (3) $500 per month for each External Subscriber if the Distributor makes Derived Data available to 11 or more External Subscribers. For example, a Distributor providing White Label Derived Data based on Cboe One Summary to six External Subscribers would be charged a monthly fee of $4,500 (
Alternatively, Distributors would be charged the following fees for an API Service for Cboe One Summary Derived Data: (1) $5,000 per month for each External Subscriber if the Distributor makes Derived Data available to 1-5 External Subscribers; (2) $4,000 per month for each External Subscriber if the Distributor makes Derived Data available to 6-20 External Subscribers; and (3) $3,000 per month for each External Subscriber if the Distributor makes Derived Data available to 11 or more External Subscribers. For example, a Distributor providing API Service Derived Data based on Cboe One Summary to six External Subscribers would be charged a monthly fee of $24,000 (
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to adopt fees for the proposed Platform Service for Cboe One Summary data in addition to the proposed fees for BZX Top discussed above. Like the proposed fee for BZX Top Derived Data, Distributors of Cboe One Summary Derived Data would be liable for the fees normally applicable for the external distribution of Cboe One Summary, except for the Non-Professional User fee, and the Data Consolidation Fee. Therefore, under the Platform Service, Distributors of Cboe One Summary Derived Data would be liable for the External Distribution Fee ($5,000/month) and Professional User Fee ($10/month) and the Data Consolidation Fee.
Based on the proposed amendments discussed above, the Exchange proposes several clarifying modifications to the Fee Schedule. First, the Exchange proposes to add a definition of “Platform Service” to the Market Data Fees definitions section of the Fee Schedule. The definition would provide that “a Platform Service is a type of hosted display solution in which a Distributor provides derivative products to Platform Service Data Users within their infrastructure. The service allows Distributors to make Derived Data available as part of a platform, providing users remote access to derivative products based in whole or in part on Exchange data.”
The Exchange also proposes to amend explanatory asterisks provided under the Program in the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the paragraph following the first asterisk to reference the proposed Platform Service in addition to the existing references to the White Label Service and API Service. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to add references to Cboe One Summary after all references to BZX Top in the paragraph following the first asterisk. The Exchange also proposes to add additional examples to asterisks two and three so as to explain the application of fees for Derived Data from Cboe One Summary. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to add an additional asterisk to state that Cboe One Summary data would be subject to the Data Consolidation fee set forth in the Fee Schedule. These proposed changes would provide clarity in the Fee Schedule based on the addition of the Platform Service and Cboe One Summary proposed herein.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change would further broaden the availability of U.S. equity market data to investors, consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are 16 registered national securities exchanges that trade U.S. equities and have the capability to offer associated top of book market data products to their customers. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
As discussed above, the proposed Platform Service would eliminate the Non-Professional User Fee to Distributors that is normally applied for the External Distribution of Exchange data. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to introduce reduced fees for the use of Derived Data on Platform Services as the proposed fee reduction would facilitate cost effective access to market information that is used primarily to create and display certain derivative instruments rather than to display the underlying U.S. equity securities. The proposed Platform Service fees are constrained by competition, and it is this competition that is driving the proposed fee change. Indeed, the Program is designed to allow the Exchange to compete more effectively for market data distributors that purchase market information to offer Derived Data to investors.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to enhance the Program by expanding Exchange data offered under the Program to include Cboe One Summary as doing so will allow Distributors to create Derived Data that is based on a more comprehensive view of the U.S. equities market. Because Exchange data in this context is primarily purchased for the creation of Derived Data encompassing certain derivative instruments, Distributors do not require a consolidated view of the market across multiple exchanges, and will generally purchase such data from a single or select few exchange(s) for their purposes. As noted above, Cboe One Summary includes top of book quotation and transaction data across all four Cboe equity exchanges, which would allow Distributors to create more meaningful Derived Data than that available from a single exchange's market data at a potentially reduced price.
The existence of alternatives to the Program ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory fees, as subscribers are free to elect such alternatives. That is, the Exchange competes with other exchanges that provide similar top of book and/or consolidated top of book products and pricing programs for Derived Data.
The proposed rule change would provide an optional fee structure for Distributors to use Exchange data to make Derived Data available to Non-Professional Users via a Platform Service at a reduced fee. As proposed, if a Distributor uses a Platform Service to distribute Derived Data, the Distributor would be charged the normal applicable External Distribution Fees and User Fees excluding the Non-Professional User Fee. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge a fee for Professional Users but no fee for Non-Professional Users. Non-Professional Users are already subject to a heavily discounted fee for BZX Top market data relative to Professional Users. Differential fees for Professional and Non-Professional Users are widely used by the Exchange and other exchanges for their proprietary market data as this reduces costs for retail investors and makes market data more broadly available. The Exchange believes that eliminating fees for Non-Professional Users that access Derived Data from Distributors pursuant to the Program is consistent with longstanding precedent indicating that it is consistent with the Act to provide reasonable incentives to retail investors that rely on the public markets for their investment needs.
The proposed rule change would also provide Distributors the option to create Derived Data from Cboe One Summary, and benefit from reduced fees for that product under the Financial Product Distribution Program, in addition to the currently available BZX Top. The proposed fees would only apply to Distributors that elect to create Derived Data from Cboe One Summary. Similar to the fee structure for BZX Top under the Program, no fee would be assessed for Non-Professional Users of Derived Data from Cboe One Summary. For the same reasons discussed above, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge a fee for Professional Users but no fee for Non-Professional Users. Further, the proposed fee would only apply to Distributors that elect to participate in the Program by distributing Derived Data from Cboe One Summary. Exchange market data is distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data available. Although the proposed pricing for Cboe One Summary differs from the pricing currently in place for BZX Top, the Exchange also believes that its pricing reflects the relative benefits provided to Distributors that provide Derived Data based on market information from all four Cboe equities exchanges. For example, the proposed fee for one to five External Subscribers of Derived Data based on Cboe One Summary using the API Service is equal to the aggregate standard External Distribution Fee across the Cboe equities exchange Top feeds, and is also equal to the standard External Distribution Fee for Cboe One Summary (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price these data products is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar data products, and pricing options, to their customers. Top of book data is broadly disseminated by competing U.S. equities exchanges. There are therefore a number of alternative products available to market participants and investors. In this competitive environment potential subscribers are free to choose which competing product to purchase to satisfy their need for market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as broker-dealers or vendors look to purchase the lowest priced top of book data product, or quality, as market participants seek to purchase data that represents significant market liquidity. In order to better compete for this segment of the market, the Exchange is proposing to reduce fees charged to Distributors that distribute Derived Data through an Exchange approved Platform and enhance the existing program to offer Distributors the option to create Derived Data based on Cboe One Summary. The Exchange believes that this would facilitate greater access to Exchange data, ultimately benefiting investors that are provided access to such data.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants. The proposed fees would apply equally to external distributors of BZX Top or Cboe One Summary that make Derived Data available through one of the three Service options offered by the Exchange under the Program. The continued difference in fees under the Program as compared to the normal External Distribution fees for both BZX Top and Cboe One Summary are appropriate given that External Subscribers and Users receive Derived Data, which by definition cannot be readily reverse‐engineered to recreate BZX Top or Cboe One Summary data or used to create other data that is a reasonable facsimile or substitute for BZX Top or Cboe One Summary. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed fees neither favor nor penalize one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition. The proposed Platform Service fees would apply to data derived from BZX Top and Cboe One Summary, which are subject to competition from exchanges that offer similar products, including but not limited to those that choose to provide similar pricing options for Derived Data. A number of national securities exchanges, including the Exchange, its affiliated Cboe U.S. equities exchanges, and the Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (“Nasdaq”) offer pricing discounts for Derived Data today. These pricing programs reduce the cost of accessing top of book market information that is used, among other things, to create derivative instruments rather than to trade U.S. equity securities. Specifically, the Nasdaq Derived Data Enterprise license covers the Distributor of the Derived Data to their own users, while the Exchange's current Derived Data programs currently do not cover the Distributor of the Derived Data. In order to better compete for this segment of the market, the Exchange is proposing to expand the Program to include a Derived Data Platform Service, which would allow the Distributors of Derived Data to benefit from discounted pricing when providing the Derived Data to their own end users. Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to enhance the Program by providing a fee structure for Cboe One Summary, which would allow Distributors to create Derived Data that is based on a more comprehensive view of the U.S. equities market. The Exchange does not believe that the proposal would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition as other exchanges and data vendors are free to lower their prices to better compete with the Exchange's offering. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is pro-competitive as it seeks to offer pricing incentives to customers to better position the Exchange as it competes to attract additional market data subscribers.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the fees applicable to the BZX Top Feed. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the fees applicable to the BZX Top Feed,
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.”
Equity trading is currently dispersed across sixteen exchanges, including three new U.S. equities exchanges that launched trading in 2020, 32 alternative trading systems,
Currently, the Exchange charges a modest fee of $500 per month for internal distribution of BZX Top Feed data,
As discussed, the Exchange now proposes to increase certain fees applicable to firms that consume this data as internal distributors,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, with the launch of three new national securities exchanges that trade U.S. equity securities last September, there are now sixteen registered U.S equities exchanges, and with the exception of Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc. (“LTSE”), which has determined to not offer any proprietary market data feeds, each of these exchanges offer associated market data products to their customers, either with or without a fee. It is in this robust and competitive market in which the Exchange is proposing to increase its fees, while still providing its data at a significantly lower price than competing products offered by other national securities exchanges with similar data quality.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Further, with respect to market data, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
Subscribing to the BZX Top Feed is entirely optional. The Exchange is not required to make the BZX Top Feed available to any customers, nor is any customer required to purchase the BZX Top Feed.
Indeed, if the BZX Top Feed does not provide sufficient value to firms based on the uses those firms may have for it, such firms may simply choose to conduct their business operations in ways that do not use the BZX Top Feed. In fact, comparing the number of internal distributors that currently subscribe to the BZX Top Feed, based on data compiled by the Exchange as of November 2020, to the total number of internal distributors that subscribe to core data offered by the CTA and UTP SIPs, as published on plan websites for Q3 2020,
Although the Exchange is not required to make any data, including top-of-book data, available through its proprietary market data platform, the Exchange believes that making such data available increases investor choice, and contributes to a fair and competitive market. Specifically, making such data publicly available through proprietary data feeds allows investors to choose alternative, potentially less costly, market data based on their business needs. For example, a buy-side investor or fintech firm may choose to purchase the BZX Top Feed, or a similar product from another exchange, in order to perform investment analysis, or to provide general information about the market for U.S. equity securities, respectively. In either case the choice to purchase the BZX Top Feed would be based on the firm's determination of the value of the data offered by their chosen product compared to the cost of acquiring this data instead of receiving similar data from other sources. The BZX Top Feed serves as a valuable reference for investors that do not require a consolidated display. Making alternative products available to market participants ultimately ensures competition in the marketplace, and constrains the ability of exchanges to charge supra-competitive fees.
Further, in the event that a market data customer views one exchange's top-of-book data product and/or fees as more or less attractive than a competitor's offerings they can and
Distributors can discontinue use of the BZX Top Feed at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Indeed, one internal distributor of the BZX Top Feed that cancelled its subscription as of February 2021 informed the Exchange that its decision to do so was based on this fee increase, which initially went into effect for the month of January 2021. Other internal distributors are free to similarly cancel their subscriptions in favor of a competitor offering, or cheaper or free data offered by the Exchange's affiliated U.S. equities exchanges, if they believe that the fees are too high given their particular use case for obtaining the data that the Exchange provides over the BZX Top Feed. The Exchange offers all of its proprietary market data products pursuant to a month-to-month contract that allows subscribers to choose to terminate their subscription at any time. As a result, there are no contractual or other legal impediments for firms that wish to cancel their subscription to the Exchange's market data products, including the BZX Top Feed. In addition, the Exchange notes that all internal distributors of the BZX Top Feed either receive this data through a market data vendor, as opposed to directly from the Exchange, or is a market data vendor itself.
In setting the proposed fees for the BZX Top Feed, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. Indeed, the Exchange is not in a position to charge unreasonable fees for its top-of-book data as there are a number of competing products in the market, including products that are currently offered free of charge by certain other exchanges that have determined not to charge for their market data. The existence of alternatives to the BZX Top Feed ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees when vendors and subscribers can freely elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the purchase.
The proposed fees are also reasonable as even with the proposed fee increase they would continue to represent a relatively modest fee for top-of-book data that has proven valuable for investors. The BZX Top Feed is a competitively-priced alternative to top-of-book data disseminated by other national securities exchanges. It is purchased by a wide variety of market participants and vendors, including data platforms, websites, fintech firms, buy-side investors, retail brokers, regional banks, and securities firms inside and outside of the U.S. that desire low cost, high quality, real-time U.S. equity market data. By providing lower cost access to U.S. equity market data, the BZX Top Feed benefits a wide range of investors that participate in the national market system. As discussed, the decision to purchase a particular market data product from a particular exchange is largely based on two factors: (1) The quality of the data, and (2) the price charged for access to that data. The Exchange believes that the BZX Top Feed is competitive on both of these factors.
First, the BZX Top Feed would remain competitively priced compared to similar products offered by other comparable U.S. equities exchanges. Although the BZX Top Feed is not offered free of charge like certain other competitor offerings, particularly those offered by newer U.S. equities exchanges that are seeking to grow market share, it is made available at a price that is significantly lower than the prices charged by the Exchange's main competitors—
Second, the proposed fees are reasonable given the value of the data provided in the BZX Top Feed and used by data recipients in their profit-generating activities. The BZX Top Feed provides top-of-book quotations and transactions executed on the Exchange, and provides a valuable window into the market for securities traded on a market that accounts for about 5% of U.S. equity market volume today.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees for internal distribution of the BZX Top Feed will continue to be allocated fairly and equitably among subscribers, and are not unfairly discriminatory, as the proposed fees will apply equally to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the BZX Top Feed and distribute that data to internal subscribers. As proposed, all internal distributors of the BZX Top Feed will be subject to the same internal distribution fee, regardless of the type of business that they operate, or the use they plan to make of the data feed. Thus, all internal distributors would have access to the BZX Top Feed on the same equitable and non-discriminatory terms. Similarly, with the introduction of Professional User fees, internal distributors of the BZX Top Feed will be subject to the same modest fees based solely on the number of Professional Users that each internal distributor has chosen to permission for access to this information. The Exchange does not believe that it is inequitable, or unfairly discriminatory, to charge a fee based on the number of Professional Users within a firm that have access to the BZX Top Feed as this ensures that firms with the highest usage pay their equitable share for the data.
The Exchange also believes that it is fair and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory, to continue
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is fair and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to charge different fees for internal and external distribution of the BZX Top Feed. As is common practice, the Exchange charges lower fees to distributors that use its market data products for internal distribution only than to distributors
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price these data products is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar data products to their customers. Top-of-book data is broadly disseminated by competing U.S. equities exchanges. There are therefore a number of alternative products available to market participants and investors, including products offered by certain competing exchanges without charge. In this competitive environment potential subscribers are free to choose which competing product to purchase to satisfy their need for market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as market data customers look to purchase cheaper top-of-book data products, and quality, as market participants seek to purchase data that represents significant market liquidity.
To the extent that particular fees would apply to only a subset of subscribers,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 4, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, along with the comments received on the proposal. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the fees applicable to the EDGX Top Feed. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the fees applicable to the EDGX Top Feed,
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.”
Equity trading is currently dispersed across sixteen exchanges, including three new U.S. equities exchanges that launched trading in 2020, 32 alternative trading systems,
Currently, the Exchange charges a modest fee of $500 per month for internal distribution of EDGX Top Feed data,
As discussed, the Exchange now proposes to increase certain fees applicable to firms that consume this
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, with the launch of three new national securities exchanges that trade U.S. equity securities last September, there are now sixteen registered U.S equities exchanges, and with the exception of Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc. (“LTSE”), which has determined to not offer any proprietary market data feeds, each of these exchanges offer associated market data products to their customers, either with or without a fee. It is in this robust and competitive market in which the Exchange is proposing to increase its fees, while still providing its data at a significantly lower price than competing products offered by other national securities exchanges with similar data quality.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Further, with respect to market data, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
Subscribing to the EDGX Top Feed is entirely optional. The Exchange is not required to make the EDGX Top Feed available to any customers, nor is any customer required to purchase the EDGX Top Feed.
Indeed, if the EDGX Top Feed does not provide sufficient value to firms based on the uses those firms may have for it, such firms may simply choose to conduct their business operations in ways that do not use the EDGX Top Feed. In fact, comparing the number of internal distributors that currently subscribe to the EDGX Top Feed, based on data compiled by the Exchange as of November 2020, to the total number of internal distributors that subscribe to core data offered by the CTA and UTP SIPs, as published on plan websites for Q3 2020,
Although the Exchange is not required to make any data, including top-of-book data, available through its proprietary market data platform, the Exchange believes that making such data available increases investor choice, and contributes to a fair and competitive market. Specifically, making such data publicly available through proprietary data feeds allows investors to choose alternative, potentially less costly, market data based on their business needs. For example, a buy-side investor or fintech firm may choose to purchase the EDGX Top Feed, or a similar product from another exchange, in order to perform investment analysis, or to provide general information about the market for U.S. equity securities, respectively. In either case the choice to purchase the EDGX Top Feed would be based on the firm's determination of the value of the data offered by their chosen product compared to the cost of acquiring this data instead of receiving similar data from other sources. The EDGX Top Feed serves as a valuable reference for investors that do not require a consolidated display. Making alternative products available to market participants ultimately ensures competition in the marketplace, and constrains the ability of exchanges to charge supra-competitive fees.
Further, in the event that a market data customer views one exchange's top-of-book data product and/or fees as more or less attractive than a competitor's offerings they can and often do switch between competing products. As discussed, similar top-of-book information is available from a number of competing U.S. equities exchanges.
Distributors can discontinue use of the EDGX Top Feed at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Indeed, the Exchange's affiliate, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), which also filed to increase fees for its top-of-book product,
In setting the proposed fees for the EDGX Top Feed, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. Indeed, the Exchange is not in a position to charge unreasonable fees for its top-of-book data as there are a number of competing products in the market, including products that are currently offered free of charge by certain other exchanges that have determined not to charge for their market data. The existence of alternatives to the EDGX Top Feed ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees when vendors and subscribers can freely elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the purchase.
The proposed fees are also reasonable as even with the proposed fee increase they would continue to represent a relatively modest fee for top-of-book
First, the EDGX Top Feed would remain competitively priced compared to similar products offered by other comparable U.S. equities exchanges. Although the EDGX Top Feed is not offered free of charge like certain other competitor offerings, particularly those offered by newer U.S. equities exchanges that are seeking to grow market share, it is made available at a price that is significantly lower than the prices charged by the Exchange's main competitors—
Second, the proposed fees are reasonable given the value of the data provided in the EDGX Top Feed and used by data recipients in their profit-generating activities. The EDGX Top Feed provides top-of-book quotations and transactions executed on the Exchange, and provides a valuable window into the market for securities traded on a market that accounts for more than 7.5% of U.S. equity market volume today.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees for internal distribution of the EDGX Top Feed will continue to be allocated fairly and equitably among subscribers, and are not unfairly
The Exchange also believes that it is fair and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory, to continue
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is fair and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to charge different fees for internal and external distribution of the EDGX Top Feed. As is common practice, the Exchange charges lower fees to distributors that use its market data products for internal distribution only than to distributors that redistribute that data externally to their customers. In the case of the EDGX Top Feed, external distributors are subject to a higher distribution fee, and are also subject to Non-Professional User fees, which as discussed above the Exchange has determined to continue not to charge to internal distributors.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price these data products is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar data products to their customers. Top-of-book data is broadly disseminated by competing U.S. equities exchanges. There are therefore a number of alternative products available to market participants and investors, including products offered by certain competing exchanges without charge. In this competitive environment potential subscribers are free to choose which competing product to purchase to satisfy their need for market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as market data customers look to purchase cheaper top-of-book data products, and quality, as market participants seek to purchase data that represents significant market liquidity.
To the extent that particular fees would apply to only a subset of subscribers,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 30, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
NYSE Rules (“Rule”) 451 and 465 require NYSE member organizations that hold securities for beneficial owners in street name to solicit proxies from, and deliver proxy and issuer communication materials to, beneficial owners on behalf of issuers.
The Exchange has proposed to adopt Rule 451A, pursuant to which, notwithstanding the applicable provisions of Rules 451 or 465 or what may be permitted by the rules of any other national securities exchange or national securities association of which a member organization is also a member, no fee shall be imposed for a nominee account that contains only shares or units of the securities involved that were transferred to the account holder by the member organization at no cost or at a price substantially less than the market price.
According to the Exchange, the proposed rule is meant to address a recent practice in which retail brokers provide customers, without charge, a small number of shares with a very small dollar value as a commercial incentive (for example, upon opening a new account or referring a new customer to the broker).
The Exchange believes that it would be more appropriate for the broker to bear the proxy distribution costs in these circumstances.
The Exchange states that proposed Rule 451A would not limit a broker's right to reimbursement for distributions to any beneficial owner if any part of that beneficial owner's position in an issuer's securities was received by any means other than a transfer without charge or at a price substantially less than the market price from the broker.
Two commenters expressed general support for the proposal.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis and input concerning the proposed rule change's consistency with the Act and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
Proposed Rule 451A would prohibit an NYSE member firm from seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with the distribution of proxies or other materials to a beneficial owner on behalf of an issuer, in cases where the member has provided the shares held in the beneficial owner's account at no cost or at a price “substantially less than the market price.” However, the Exchange does not explain how it would determine whether a price is “substantially less than the market price,” such that reimbursement could not be sought, or provide any other guidance on the meaning of that term. In addition, the proposed prohibition on reimbursement would not apply if any part of the beneficial owner's position in an
The Commission notes that, under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory organization [`SRO'] that proposed the rule change.”
For these reasons, the Commission believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings 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 proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written view of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by April 13, 2021. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 27, 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The Exchange proposes to amend General 9, Section 19, “Discretionary Power as to Customers' Accounts” and adopt two new rules within General 9 at Sections 30 and 45.
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.
A proposal to amend General 9, Section 19, “Discretionary Power as to Customers' Accounts” and adopt two new rules within General 9 at Sections 30 and 45. Each change is described below.
Today, General 9, Section 19, “Discretionary Power as to Customers' Accounts” has a rule citation to former “NASD Rule 2510.” General 9, Section 19 was relocated
During 2008, FINRA embarked on an extended process of moving rules formerly designated as “NASD Rules” into a consolidated FINRA rulebook.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to update the reference to “NASD Rule 2510” within General 9, Section 19 and replace it with a reference to “FINRA Rule 3260”. The Exchange also proposes to add a new section (b) to provide cross-references to rules cited within FINRA Rule 3260 to corresponding Phlx rules. In doing so, Phlx is cross-referencing two new rules which are being adopted by this proposal.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the title of this rule from “Discretionary Power as to Customers' Accounts” to “Discretionary Accounts.”
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new General 9, Section 30, which is currently reserved, which is identical to FINRA Rule 4511 in order to align its rule with FINRA's rule.
By way of background, current FINRA Rule 4511 streamlined, and replaced, the language of former NASD Rule 3110(a) to clarify that members are obligated to make and preserve books and records as required under the FINRA rules, the Exchange Act and the applicable Exchange Act rules.
Phlx proposes to incorporate by reference FINRA Rule 4511. The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) General 9, Section 30 similarly incorporates FINRA Rule 4511.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new General 9, Section 45, which is currently reserved, and title that rule “Customer Account Information.” The Exchange proposes to adopt rule text similar to Nasdaq General 9, Section 45, which is based on FINRA Rule 4512.
By way of background, former NASD Rule 3110(c)(1) required that members maintain certain information relating to customer accounts, including, among other things, the signature of the registered representative introducing the account and signature of the member, partner, officer or manager who accepts the account. FINRA proposed to simplify this provision by instead requiring members to maintain the name of the associated person, if any, responsible for the account. Current FINRA Rule 4512 requires where a member designates multiple individuals as being responsible for an account, the member maintain each of their names and a record indicating the scope of their responsibilities with respect to the account. Also, the rule requires that members maintain the signature of the partner, officer or manager denoting that the account has been accepted in accordance with the member's policies and procedures for acceptance of accounts.
FINRA provides that with respect to accounts opened pursuant to prior NASD Rules (
• Clarify that required customer account records are subject to a six-year retention period;
• Remind members that they may be subject to additional recordkeeping requirements under the Exchange Act (
• Remind members of their obligation to comply with the requirements of FINRA Rule 2070 (Transactions Involving FINRA Employees);
• Provide general explanations of the terms “maintain” and “preserve” for purposes of Rule 4512 only.
The remaining provisions of NASD Rule 3110(c) were incorporated into FINRA Rule 4512 without material change.
Phlx proposes to adopt a new rule, similar to Nasdaq General 9, Section 45, which provides:
(a) Phlx member organizations and persons associated with a member shall comply with FINRA Rule 4512 as if such Rule were part of the Phlx rules.
(b) For purposes of this Rule:
(1) References to Rule 3260 shall be construed as references to General 9, Section 19;
(2) references to Rules 2070, 2090, and 4512 shall be construed as references to General 9, Sections 29, 10, and this Rule, respectively;
(3) references to “a prior FINRA rule” shall be construed as references to “a FINRA or PHLX rule in effect prior to the effectiveness of FINRA Rule 4512”;
(4) PHLX and FINRA are parties to the Regulatory Contract pursuant to which FINRA has agreed to perform certain functions on behalf of BX. Therefore, PHLX members are complying with this Rule by complying with FINRA Rule 4512 as written, including, for example, providing information required by FINRA staff. In addition, functions performed by FINRA, FINRA departments, and FINRA staff under this Rule are being performed by FINRA on behalf of PHLX.
This rule text incorporates FINRA Rule 4512 similar to Nasdaq General 9, Section 45.
The Exchange will request an exemption from the rule filing requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act for those rules of another self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) that it proposes to incorporate by reference and to the extent such rules are effected solely by virtue of a change to any of those rules.
The proposed rule changes that are the subject of this filing will be operative on May 31, 2021, but only if the Exchange's request for an exemption under Section 36 of the Exchange Act from filing proposed rule changes, described above, is granted by that date. The Exchange will publish a notice to confirm the status of its exemptive request on or before May 31, 2021. In the event the exemption is not granted by May 31, 2021, the Exchange will submit a filing to designate a different operative date.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The proposed changes to General 9, Section 19 and adoption of the books and records rules within General 9, Sections 30 and 45 will conform certain Phlx's Rules to FINRA rules, thus promoting application of consistent regulatory standards with respect to rules that FINRA enforces pursuant to its regulatory services agreement with Phlx.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The proposed changes to General 9, Section 19 and adoption of the books and records rules within General 9, Sections 30 and 45 will conform Phlx Rules to those of FINRA which has no impact on competition. Today, FINRA members must adhere to these 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)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change 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
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2021-13 and should be submitted on or before April 13, 2021.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that Canapi Ventures SBIC Fund, L.P., 801 17th Street NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20006, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Associates of Canapi Ventures SBIC Fund, L.P. own more than 10% of the equity interests in Finxact, Inc. 1301 Riverplace Drive, Suite 2501, Jacksonville, FL 32207, thereby making Finxact, Inc. an Associate.
The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(4) of the Regulations because Canapi Ventures SBIC Fund, L.P. and Finxact, Inc. are Associates and Canapi Ventures SBIC Fund, L.P. is seeking to invest equity in Finxact, Inc. Therefore, this transaction is considered financing an Associate, requiring a prior SBA exemption.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Last Supper in Pompeii: Food and Wine from the Table to the Grave” at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, Legion of Honor, San Francisco, California and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA and other Federal agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final. The actions relate to various proposed highway projects in the State of Colorado. Those actions issue National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 4(f) of The Department of Transportation Act (Section 4(f)) decisions for the following projects: South Bridge EA and FONSI and I-70 West Vail Pass Auxiliary Lanes EA and FONSI.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on any of the listed highway projects will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before August 20, 2021. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Stephanie Gibson, Environmental Program Manager, Federal Highway Administration Colorado Division, 12300 W Dakota Avenue, Suite 180, Lakewood, Colorado 80228, telephone: 720-963-3013, email:
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing NEPA and Section 4(f) decisions for the highway projects in the State of Colorado that are listed below. The actions by the Federal agencies on a project, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) and Section 4(f) Evaluations issued in connection with the project and in other key project documents. The EA or EIS, and other key documents for the listed projects are available by contacting the FHWA or the Colorado Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above. The EA, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), Final EIS, and Record of Decision (ROD) documents can be viewed and downloaded from the websites listed below.
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions on each project as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken. This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitation period of 150 days for challenges to final agency actions subject to previous notices published in the
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions, actions, approvals, licenses and permits on the project as of the issuance date of this notice, including but not limited to those arising under the following laws, as amended:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The projects subject to this notice are:
1.
2.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 68 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirements in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7165, Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7363, Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7918, Docket No. FMCSA-2002-12844, Docket No. FMCSA-2004-17984, Docket No. FMCSA-2005-20027, Docket No. FMCSA-2006-25246, Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26066, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0106, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0231, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0266, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0292, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0161, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0327, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0354, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0385, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0413, Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0010, Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0214, Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0279, Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0280, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0030, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0002, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0003, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0010, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0011, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0296, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0298, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0299, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0300, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0301, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0302, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0304, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0028, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0031, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0033, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0208, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0212, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0213, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0214, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0007, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0013, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0207, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0208, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0209, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0005, or Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0006 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0327; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2010-0413; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2012-0214; FMCSA-2012-0279; FMCSA-2012-0280; FMCSA-2013-0030; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-0298; FMCSA-2014-0299; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0301; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2016-0028; FMCSA-2016-0031; FMCSA-2016-0033; FMCSA-2016-0208; FMCSA-2016-0212; FMCSA-2016-0213; FMCSA-2016-0214; FMCSA-2018-0007; FMCSA-2018-0013; FMCSA-2018-0207; FMCSA-2018-0208; FMCSA-2018-0209; FMCSA-2019-0005; FMCSA-2019-0006), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
The 68 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the vision standard in § 391.41(b)(10), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 68 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision standard (see 65 FR 33406, 65 FR 45817, 65 FR 57234, 65 FR 66286, 65 FR 77066, 66 FR 13825, 67 FR 57266, 67 FR 68719, 67 FR 71610, 68 FR 2629, 68 FR 10300, 69 FR 33997, 69 FR 52741, 69 FR 61292, 69 FR 64810, 69 FR 71100, 70 FR 2701, 70 FR 7545, 70 FR 7546, 70 FR 16887, 71 FR 53489, 71 FR 55820, 71 FR 63379, 71 FR 66217, 72 FR 180, 72 FR 1051, 72 FR 1053, 72 FR 7111, 72 FR 7812, 72 FR 9397, 72 FR 12665, 73 FR 35199, 73 FR 46973, 73 FR 48275, 73 FR 51336, 73 FR 51689, 73 FR 54888, 73 FR 61922, 73 FR 61925, 73 FR 63047, 73 FR 65009, 73 FR 74563, 73 FR 74565, 73 FR 76440, 73 FR 78423, 74 FR 6211, 74 FR 6689, 74 FR 9329, 75 FR 39725, 75 FR 44051, 75 FR 52062, 75 FR 52063, 75 FR 57105, 75 FR 59327, 75 FR 61833, 75 FR 65057, 75 FR 72863, 75 FR 77492, 75 FR 77949, 75 FR 79081, 75 FR 79083, 75 FR 80887, 76 FR 1493, 76 FR 2190, 76 FR 5425, 76 FR 9856, 76 FR 9859, 76 FR 9861, 76 FR 9865, 76 FR 12408, 76 FR 15360, 76 FR 17483, 76 FR 20076, 77 FR 46153, 77 FR 46793, 77 FR 52388, 77 FR 52389, 77 FR 56262, 77 FR 59245, 77 FR 60008, 77 FR 60010, 77 FR 64583, 77 FR 64839, 77 FR 68202, 77 FR 70537, 77 FR 71671, 77 FR 74273, 77 FR 74734, 77 FR 75494, 77 FR 76167, 78 FR 800, 78 FR 8689, 78 FR 10250, 78 FR 11731, 78 FR 12813, 78 FR 16035, 78 FR 16762, 78 FR 18667, 78 FR 41975, 78 FR 56986, 79 FR 10606, 79 FR 14571, 79 FR 22003, 79 FR 28588, 79 FR 46153, 79 FR 46300, 79 FR 51642, 79 FR 51643, 79 FR 56099, 79 FR 56117, 79 FR 58856, 79 FR 64001, 79 FR 65759, 79 FR 65760, 79 FR 69985, 79 FR 70928, 79 FR 72754, 79 FR 73393, 79 FR 73397, 79 FR 73686, 79 FR 73687, 79 FR 73689, 79 FR 74168, 80 FR 603, 80 FR 2473, 80 FR 3723, 80 FR 6162, 80 FR 7678, 80 FR 7679, 80 FR 8751, 80 FR 8927, 80 FR 9304, 80 FR 12248, 80 FR 13070, 80 FR 14223, 80 FR 15859, 80 FR 15863, 80 FR 16500, 80 FR 18693, 80 FR 20562, 80 FR 29152, 80 FR 33011, 80 FR 48411, 81 FR 39320, 81 FR 52514, 81 FR 59266, 81 FR 66720, 81 FR 68098, 81 FR 70253, 81 FR 71173, 81 FR 74494, 81 FR 80161, 81 FR 81230, 81 FR 86063, 81 FR 90050, 81 FR 96165, 81 FR 96180, 81 FR 96191, 81 FR 96196, 82 FR 12678, 82 FR 12683, 82 FR 13043, 82 FR 13048, 82 FR 13187, 82 FR 15277, 82 FR 18949, 82 FR 23712, 83 FR 15214, 83 FR 28325, 83 FR 28328, 83 FR 28335, 83 FR 34661, 83 FR 40638, 83 FR 40648, 83 FR 53724, 83 FR 56140, 83 FR 56902, 83 FR 60954, 84 FR 2305, 84 FR 2309, 84 FR 2311, 84 FR 2314, 84 FR 2323, 84 FR 2326, 84 FR 10389, 84 FR 11859, 84 FR 16320, 84 FR 16336, 84 FR
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of April and are discussed below. As of April 1, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 58 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (65 FR 33406, 65 FR 45817, 65 FR 57234, 65 FR 77066, 67 FR 57266, 67 FR 68719, 67 FR 71610, 68 FR 2629, 69 FR 33997, 69 FR 52741, 69 FR 61292, 69 FR 64810, 69 FR 71100, 70 FR 7545, 71 FR 53489, 71 FR 55820, 71 FR 63379, 71 FR 66217, 72 FR 180, 72 FR 1051, 72 FR 1053, 72 FR 7812, 72 FR 9397, 73 FR 35199, 73 FR 46973, 73 FR 48275, 73 FR 51336, 73 FR 51689, 73 FR 54888, 73 FR 61922, 73 FR 61925, 73 FR 63047, 73 FR 65009, 73 FR 74563, 73 FR 74565, 73 FR 76440, 73 FR 78423, 74 FR 6211, 74 FR 6689, 75 FR 39725, 75 FR 44051, 75 FR 52062, 75 FR 52063, 75 FR 57105, 75 FR 59327, 75 FR 61833, 75 FR 65057, 75 FR 72863, 75 FR 77492, 75 FR 77949, 75 FR 79081, 75 FR 79083, 75 FR 80887, 76 FR 1493, 76 FR 2190, 76 FR 5425, 76 FR 9859, 76 FR 9861, 76 FR 9865, 76 FR 12408, 77 FR 46153, 77 FR 46793, 77 FR 52388, 77 FR 52389, 77 FR 56262, 77 FR 59245, 77 FR 60008, 77 FR 60010, 77 FR 64583, 77 FR 64839, 77 FR 68202, 77 FR 70537, 77 FR 71671, 77 FR 74273, 77 FR 74734, 77 FR 75494, 77 FR 76167, 78 FR 800, 78 FR 8689, 78 FR 10250, 78 FR 11731, 78 FR 12813, 78 FR 41975, 78 FR 56986, 79 FR 10606, 79 FR 14571, 79 FR 22003, 79 FR 28588, 79 FR 46153, 79 FR 46300, 79 FR 51642, 79 FR 51643, 79 FR 56099, 79 FR 56117, 79 FR 58856, 79 FR 64001, 79 FR 65759, 79 FR 65760, 79 FR 69985, 79 FR 70928, 79 FR 72754, 79 FR 73393, 79 FR 73397, 79 FR 73686, 79 FR 73687, 79 FR 73689, 79 FR 74168, 80 FR 603, 80 FR 2473, 80 FR 3723, 80 FR 6162, 80 FR 7678, 80 FR 7679, 80 FR 8751, 80 FR 8927, 80 FR 9304, 80 FR 15859, 80 FR 18693, 80 FR 20562, 80 FR 48411, 81 FR 39320, 81 FR 52514, 81 FR 59266, 81 FR 66720, 81 FR 68098, 81 FR 70253, 81 FR 71173, 81 FR 74494, 81 FR 80161, 81 FR 81230, 81 FR 86063, 81 FR 90050, 81 FR 96165, 81 FR 96180, 81 FR 96191, 81 FR 96196, 82 FR 12683, 82 FR 13043, 82 FR 13048, 82 FR 15277, 83 FR 15214, 83 FR 28325, 83 FR 28328, 83 FR 28335, 83 FR 34661, 83 FR 40638, 83 FR 40648, 83 FR 53724, 83 FR 56140, 83 FR 56902, 83 FR 60954, 84 FR 2305, 84 FR 2309, 84 FR 2311, 84 FR 2314, 84 FR 2323, 84 FR 2326, 84 FR 16320, 84 FR 16336, 84 FR 21401):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2000-7165, FMCSA-2000-7363, FMCSA-2002-12844, FMCSA-2004-17984, FMCSA-2006-25246, FMCSA-2006-26066, FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0231, FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0292, FMCSA-2010-0161, FMCSA-2010-0327, FMCSA-2010-0354, FMCSA-2010-0385, FMCSA-2010-0413, FMCSA-2012-0214, FMCSA-2012-0279, FMCSA-2012-0280, FMCSA-2013-0030, FMCSA-2014-0002, FMCSA-2014-0003, FMCSA-2014-0010, FMCSA-2014-0011, FMCSA-2014-0296, FMCSA-2014-0298, FMCSA-2014-0299, FMCSA-2014-0300, FMCSA-2014-0301, FMCSA-2016-0028, FMCSA-2016-0031, FMCSA-2016-0033, FMCSA-2016-0208, FMCSA-2016-0212, FMCSA-2018-0007, FMCSA-2018-0013, FMCSA-2018-0207, FMCSA-2018-0208, and FMCSA-2018-0209. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 1, 2021, and will expire on April 1, 2023.
As of April 5, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (70 FR 2701, 70 FR 16887, 72 FR 12665, 74 FR 9329, 76 FR 15360, 78 FR 16035, 80 FR 13070, 82 FR 15277, 84 FR 21401):
The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2005-20027. The exemption is applicable as of April 5, 2021, and will expire on April 5, 2023.
As of April 6, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (82 FR 12678, 82 FR 18949, 84 FR 21401):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0214. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 6, 2021, and will expire on April 6, 2023.
As of April 7, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement
The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0302. The exemption is applicable as of April 7, 2021, and will expire on April 7, 2023.
As of April 11, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (76 FR 9856, 76 FR 20076, 78 FR 16762, 80 FR 15863, 82 FR 13187, 82 FR 15277, 82 FR 23712, 84 FR 21401):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2011-0010, and FMCSA-2016-0213. Their exemptions are applicable as of April 11, 2021, and will expire on April 11, 2023.
As of April 18, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (80 FR 14223, 80 FR 33011, 84 FR 21401):
The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0304. The exemption is applicable as of April 18, 2021, and will expire on April 18, 2023.
As of April 20, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (84 FR 10389; 84 FR 21393):
The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2019-0005. The exemption is applicable as of April 20, 2021, and will expire on April 20, 2023.
As of April 21, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (65 FR 66286, 66 FR 13825, 68 FR 10300, 70 FR 7546, 72 FR 7111, 76 FR 17483, 78 FR 18667, 80 FR 16500, 82 FR 15277, 84 FR 21401):
The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2000-7918. The exemption is applicable as of April 21, 2021, and will expire on April 21, 2023.
As of April 30, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (84 FR 11859, 84 FR 27685):
The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2019-0006. The exemption is applicable as of April 30, 2021, and will expire on April 30, 2023.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a certified medical examiner (ME), as defined by § 390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under § 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the ME at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification if he/her is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 68 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision requirement in § 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Hankook Tire America Corp. (Hankook) has determined that certain Hankook Ventus S1 Noble2 passenger car tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139,
Send comments on or before April 22, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
This notice of receipt of Hankook's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
• For tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, each tire must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 CFR part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire.
• Except for retreaded tires, if a tire does not have an intended outboard sidewall, the tire must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 CFR part 574 on one sidewall and with either the tire identification number or a partial tire identification number, containing all characters in the tire identification number except for the date code and, at the discretion of the manufacturer, any optional code, on the other sidewall.
In support of its petition, Hankook submitted the following reasoning:
1. The relevant information remains readily identifiable,
2. the Agency has granted a similar petition in the past (
3. the subject tires otherwise meet the marking and performance requirements of FMVSS No. 139, and
4. Hankook is not aware of any consumer complaints, claims, or incidents related to the subject noncompliance.
Hankook's complete petition and all supporting documents are available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at
Hankook concluded by again contending that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject tires that Hankook no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after Hankook notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
FCA US LLC (f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC) “FCA US” has determined that certain Mopar rear brake hoses for use in model year (MY) 2019-2020 Ram 4500/5500 Cab Chassis motor vehicles and sold as replacement parts to FCA US dealers do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106,
Send comments on or before April 22, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
FCA US LLC (f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC) “FCA US” has determined that certain Mopar rear brake hoses for use in model year (MY) 2019-2020 Ram 4500/5500 Cab Chassis motor vehicles and sold as replacement parts to FCA US dealers do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 106,
This notice of receipt of FCA US's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
Approximately 26,961 MY 2019-2020 Ram 4500/5500 Cab Chassis motor vehicles, manufactured between February 10, 2019, and August 26, 2020, and approximately 182 Mopar right rear brake hose replacement parts having part numbers 68371722AA and 68371722AB, and left rear brake hose replacement parts having part numbers 68371723AA and 68371723AB, manufactured between January 29, 2019, and August 26 2020, are potentially involved.
FCA US explains that the noncompliance is that the inside diameter in certain Mopar rear brake hoses equipped in certain model year (MY) 2019-2020 Ram 4500/5500 Cab Chassis motor vehicles and sold to FCA US dealers as replacement parts do not meet the required 64 percentage of the nominal inside diameter of the brake hose and therefore do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 106. Specifically, FCA says that in the worst-case scenario, parts measured 52.8 percent of the nominal inside diameter.
Paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 106 provides that except for that part of an end fitting which does not contain hose, every inside diameter of any section of a hydraulic brake hose assembly shall be not less than 64 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the brake hose.
The following views and arguments presented in this section, V. Summary of FCA US's Petition, are the views and arguments provided by FCA US. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency.
FCA US described the subject noncompliance and stated that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. FCA US submitted the following views and arguments in support of the petition:
1. FCA states that it has completed testing showing that, in this particular circumstance, there is no safety concern with the noncompliant brake hose assemblies that were built with an under-specification orifice size. FCA further claims that the testing shows there is no concern for hose rupture and
2. FCA claims that the Ram 4500/5500 Cab Chassis vehicle achieves no more than 2,500 pounds per square inch (PSI) in the brake hose assemblies when performing FMVSS No. 105 testing for stopping distance. FMVSS No. 106 specifies a minimum burst strength requirement of 7,000 PSI for brake hoses of 1/8″ or smaller diameter. (The subject brake hoses have a diameter of 1/8″.) The FCA internal specification requires the supplier to perform burst testing daily, and the minimum requirement that all hose assemblies must meet is 9,000 PSI under the FMVSS No. 106 test conditions. The brake hose assemblies containing an out of specification orifice all surpassed the requirement and showed no difference from those containing a compliant orifice.
3. FCA believes that the viscosity of brake fluid at colder temperatures increases, thus, the flow rate of brake fluid will be reduced at colder temperatures, making cold temperature testing the worst-case scenario. The Ram 4500/5500 Cab Chassis vehicle brake hose assemblies containing an out of specification orifice and those with a compliant orifice were tested for flow at ambient and at cold temperature. The cold temperature test included an overnight soak at −30° C. The test was conducted using a panic brake application of 500 Newtons in 0.5 seconds per FMVSS No. 105 pedal force requirements and then held for an additional 5 seconds to ensure fluid flow to the wheel end. The compliant and noncompliant brake hose assemblies showed no meaningful difference in the time they each took to reach 50 bar and 100 bar at either ambient or cold.
4. FCA tested the Ram 4500/5500 Cab Chassis vehicle for stopping distance according to FMVSS No. 105 testing procedures for vehicles over 10,000 pounds (“lbs.”) Gross Vehicle Weight, which is the worst-case scenario. The test was conducted on a vehicle that was slowed from a speed of 60 mph with a maximum pedal effort of 150 lbs. to determine if it could meet the required stopping distance requirements. The test was conducted six times, and FCA focused on second effectiveness and third effectiveness results. The best distance was used to calculate the Best Stop Percentage Margin. The test results showed no meaningful difference between the second effectiveness and the third effectiveness government specifications or the more stringent FCA internal stopping requirements between a brake hose with an out of specification orifice and a brake hose with a compliant orifice. FCA completed two tests with brake hose assemblies with compliant orifice sizes and one test with the subject out of specification orifice size.
5. FCA is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer complaints associated with the condition.
FCA concludes by again contending that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, be granted.
FCA's complete petition and all supporting documents, including details of test results, are available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at:
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles and equipment that FCA no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles and equipment under their control after FCA notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petitions.
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (TMNA) on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) (collectively referred to as “Toyota”) has determined that certain replacement seat belt assemblies manufactured by Tokai Rika Mexico and Joyson Safety Systems and sold to Toyota dealerships as replacement equipment do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209,
Send comments on or before April 22, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petitions are granted or denied, notice of the decisions will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
This notice of receipt of Toyota's petitions is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
In support of its petition, Toyota submitted the following reasoning:
Toyota stated that it is unlikely that the subject replacement seat belt assemblies would be selected for an incorrect seating position as a result of this issue. The subject assemblies were only sold by Toyota dealerships. The parts ordering system clearly indicates the part and enables identification of the appropriate model vehicle and seating position for which the assembly is intended to be installed. When selecting a replacement part, the dealerships can search by Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), part number, and vehicle model. They can also see a diagram of the part location via the Electronic Parts Catalog. In addition, the part can be identified by the label on the box and the old part can be compared to the new part. The label on the box in which the replacement seat belt is packaged specifies the part number and part description.
Because of the Toyota dealerships' robust part ordering system and the additional label on the box, it is unlikely that an incorrect seat belt would be provided or used as a replacement part. The missing instruction sheet has no effect on a dealership's ability to provide the correct replacement part ordered or on the installer's ability to correctly identify the appropriate replacement part.
It is unlikely that an improper installation of a replacement seat belt would occur as a result of a missing instruction sheet. First, if the instruction sheet is missing from the box, the installer would likely obtain the correct installation information from a different source or would return the part to the dealer.
Second, after identifying that the part does not have the installation instruction sheet, the installer could return the part to the dealer, request the installation instructions from the dealer, or consult other sources of installation instructions that are readily available. Technicians at Toyota dealerships have access to Toyota's electronic repair manual. Third-party installers have access to various aftermarket repair manuals and can obtain access to Toyota's electronic repair manual. Finally, the installer can also request a copy of the installation instructions from Toyota; and it would be provided free of charge.
Third, the subject assemblies themselves have characteristics that discourage incorrect installation. Because the subject seat belts are not universal type seat belts, they are intended to be used to replace specific seat belts in specific seating positions. Thus, the installation procedure is the reverse of part removal. Further, Toyota believes that it is unlikely that the subject seat belts can be installed properly in an incorrect seating position.
All of the Tokai Rika Mexico seat belt assemblies are intended to be used as replacement equipment for the model year (MY) 2020 Corolla rear seat. Toyota determined that these seat belt assemblies cannot be properly installed in any of the other MY 2020 Corolla seating positions and are not used on any other Toyota or Lexus models.
Concerning the Joyson Safety Systems seat belt assemblies, based on the audits Toyota conducted of the replacement seat belt assemblies in its parts distribution centers, Toyota identified 27 different replacement seat belt assembly models that had incorrect instruction sheets. While there could be other variations not identified in these audits, Toyota determined that the seat belt assemblies identified in these audits could not be properly installed in the location specified by the incorrect instruction sheet. In addition, the torque value for structurally mounting the seat belt assemblies is a standard value and is correct regardless of which instruction sheet is used (42Nm). Because these torque values are common, even if the technician uses the torque values from the wrong installation instruction sheet, the torque value will still be correct.
For these reasons, it is unlikely that the subject seat belt assemblies would be improperly installed.
It is unlikely that an improper use or maintenance of a replacement seat belt would occur as a result of a missing or incorrect instruction sheet. The affected seat belt assemblies are designed to replace the originally equipped seat belts in specific Toyota vehicles. All of the vehicle models for which these replacement seat belt assemblies were designed were originally equipped with an owner's manual that contains usage and maintenance instructions for these seat belt assemblies. Thus, the vehicle owner has access to the usage and maintenance instructions and would not need to refer to the instruction sheet for this information.
The missing or incorrect instruction sheets have no bearing on the materials or performance of the replacement seat belt assembly itself. Thus, the assemblies continue to meet the other performance requirements specified in FMVSS No. 209. There is no impact to performance, functionality, or occupant safety.
Toyota has searched its records for allegations of missing instruction sheets concerning the subject replacement seat belt assemblies. As of April 23, 2020, no owner complaints, field reports, warranty claims, legal claims, or dealer technical assistance calls concerning the missing installation instruction sheets were found.
NHTSA has previously granted at least seven similar petitions for inconsequential noncompliance for missing or incorrect instruction sheets for certain replacement seat belt assemblies. These include: FCA US LLC (84 FR 20948, May 13, 2019); Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., (77 FR 24762, April 25, 2012); Bentley Motors, Inc. (76 FR 58343, September 20, 2011); Hyundai Motor Company (74 FR 9125, March 2, 2009); Ford Motor Company, (73 FR 11462, March 3, 2008); Mazda North American Operations (73 FR 11464, March 3, 2008); and Subaru of America, Inc. (65 FR 67471, November 9, 2000).
Toyota's complete petition and all supporting documents are available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at
Toyota concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the equipment that Toyota no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant seat belt assemblies under their control after Toyota notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8
Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Notice.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announces a meeting of the Minority Depository Institutions Advisory Committee (MDIAC).
The OCC MDIAC will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, April 13, 2021, via webinar, beginning at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The OCC will hold the April 13, 2021 meeting of the MDIAC via webinar.
Beverly Cole, Designated Federal Officer and Deputy Comptroller for the Northeastern District, (212) 790-4001, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 340 Madison Ave., Fifth Floor, New York, New York 10173.
By this notice, the OCC is announcing that the MDIAC will convene a meeting at 1:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, April 13, 2021, via webinar. Agenda items will include current topics of interest to the industry. The purpose of the meeting is for the MDIAC to advise the OCC on steps the
The OCC must receive written statements no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, April 6, 2021. Members of the public who plan to attend the meeting via webinar should contact the OCC by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, April 6, 2021, to inform the OCC of their desire to attend the meeting and to obtain information about participation via webinar. Members of the public may contact the OCC via email at
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing an update to the identifying information of a person currently included in the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. 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 Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On March 17, 2021, OFAC updated the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List entry for the following person, whose property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction continue to be blocked.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that a virtual meeting of the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation (the Committee) will begin and end as follows:
The virtual meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities.
The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising during service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule, and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of Veterans relating to disability compensation.
The agenda will include, but is not limited to, briefings on the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities and on relevant earnings and losses studies.
Time will not be allocated at this virtual meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, interested individuals may submit a one (1) to two (2) page summary of their written statements for the Committee's review. Public statements may be received no later than June 15, 2021; for inclusion in the official meeting record. Please send these to Sian Roussel of the Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation Service at
Members of the public who wish to obtain a copy of the agenda should contact Sian Roussel at
The call-in number for those who would like to attend the meeting is 1-800-767-1750; access code: 75937#.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that a virtual meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special-Disabilities Programs will be held on Monday, April 19-Tuesday, April 20, 2021. The meeting sessions will begin and end as follow:
The virtual meeting sessions are open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on VA's prosthetics programs designed to provide state-of-the-art prosthetics and the associated rehabilitation research, development, and evaluation of such technology. The Committee also provides advice to the Secretary on special-disabilities programs, which are defined as any program administered by the Secretary to serve Veterans with spinal cord injuries, blindness or visual impairments, loss of extremities or loss of function, deafness or hearing impairment, and other serious incapacities in terms of daily life functions.
On April 19, 2021 the Committee will convene open virtual sessions on Overview of the Federal Advisory Committee Act; Subcommittees for Neurology Centers of Excellence; Office of Community Care; Office of Workforce Management and Consulting; Chiropractic Care; and Spinal Cord Injury and Disorders System of Care.
On April 20, 2021, the Committee members will convene open virtual sessions on Amputation System of Care; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Polytrauma System of Care; and Clinical Orthotic and Prosthetic Services.
No time will be allocated at this virtual meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. The public may submit 1-2-page summaries of their written statements for the Committee's review. Public comments may be received no later than April 12, 2021 for inclusion in the official meeting record. Please send these comments to Judy Schafer, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, Rehabilitation and Prosthetic Services, Veterans Health Administration, at
Members of the public who wish to obtain a copy of the agenda, should contact Judy Schafer, Ph.D. at