International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Southeastern Power Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
The Drug Enforcement Administration is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Terrence L. Boos, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 362-3249.
On November 25, 2020, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) permanently placed five fentanyl-related substances (cyclopentyl fentanyl (
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1308 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 956(b), unless otherwise noted.
(b) * * *
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Temporary rule; temporary scheduling order; extension.
The Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this order to extend the temporary schedule I status of ethyl 2-(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1
This order, which extends the temporary scheduling order that DEA previously issued for these substances (84 FR 15505, April 16, 2019), is effective April 16, 2021, and expires on April 16, 2022. If DEA publishes a final rule making this scheduling action permanent, this order will expire on the effective date of that rule, if the effective date is earlier than April 16, 2022.
Terrence L. Boos, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 362-3249.
On April 16, 2019, the former Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published a temporary scheduling order in the
The Acting Administrator of DEA, on his own motion, has initiated proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule 5F-EDMB-PINACA, 5F-MDMB-PICA, FUB-AKB48, 5F-CUMYL-PINACA and FUB-144. DEA is simultaneously publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking for the placement of 5F-EDMB-PINACA, 5F-MDMB-PICA, FUB-AKB48, 5F-CUMYL-PINACA and FUB-144 in schedule I elsewhere in this issue of the
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the Acting Administrator orders that the temporary scheduling of 5F-EDMB-PINACA, 5F-MDMB-PICA, FUB-AKB48, 5F-CUMYL-PINACA and FUB-144, and their optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts, and salts of isomers, be extended for one year, or until the permanent scheduling proceeding is completed, whichever occurs first.
The CSA provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where the Attorney General, as delegated to the Administrator of DEA, may, by order, place a substance in schedule I if such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h). That same subsection also provides that the temporary scheduling of a substance shall expire at the end of two years from the date of the issuance of such temporary scheduling order, except that the Attorney General may, during the pendency of proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule the substance, extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year.
To the extent that subsection 811(h) directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued and extended, DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this extension of the temporary scheduling action. The specific language chosen by Congress indicates an intention for DEA to proceed through the issuance of an order instead of proceeding by rulemaking. Given that Congress specifically requires the Attorney General to follow rulemaking procedures for other kinds of scheduling actions, see 21 U.S.C. 811(a), it is
Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) section 3(f), and the principles reaffirmed in E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
As noted above, this action is an order, not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is inapplicable, as it applies only to rules. 5 U.S.C. 801, 804(3). It is in the public interest to maintain the temporary placement of 5F-EDMB-PINACA, 5F-MDMB-PICA, FUB-AKB48, 5F-CUMYL-PINACA and FUB-144 in schedule I because they pose a public health risk, for the reasons expressed in the temporary scheduling order (84 FR 15505, April 16, 2019). The temporary scheduling action was taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Under subsection 811(h), temporary scheduling orders are not subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures. DEA understands that the CSA frames temporary scheduling actions as orders rather than rules to ensure that the process moves swiftly, and this extension of the temporary scheduling order continues to serve that purpose. For the same reasons that underlie subsection 811(h), that is, the need to place these substances in schedule I because they pose an imminent hazard to public safety, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of this extension of the temporary scheduling order.
Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 808(2), this order extending the temporary scheduling order shall take effect immediately upon its publication. DEA will submit a copy of this order to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General, although such filing is not required under the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, because, as noted above, this action is an order, not a rule.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Riverfest fireworks display on the Neches River in Port Neches, TX from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on May 1, 2021 to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for fireworks displays and other events within the Eighth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Port Neches, TX. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 3 will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on May 1, 2021, or in the event of postponement due to rain, on May 2, 2021.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Scott Whalen, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 409-719-5086, email
The Coast Guard will enforce safety zone regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 3 for the Port Neches Riverfest fireworks display from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on May 1, 2021, or in the event of rain, on May 2, 2021. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways before, during, and after a pyrotechnics display. Our annual fireworks displays and other events in the Eighth Coast Guard District requiring safety zones, § 165.801, specifies the location of the safety zone for the Riverfest fireworks display which encompasses a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge anchored on the Neches River in approximate position 29°59′51″ N 093°57′06″ W (NAD83). During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.801 Table 3, if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or designated representative.
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is amending
Markes Lucius at (202) 268-6170, Denis Baranov (202) 268-4880, or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7281.
Currently, the Priority Mail Express service guarantee delivery times for most domestic mail including Priority Mail Express Military Service® and Hold For Pickup service are 12:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. as designated by the 3-digit or 5-digit destination ZIP® Code delivery areas and defined in the Priority Mail Express Delivery directory. The Postal Service is revising the 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. Priority Mail Express service guarantee delivery times to 6:00 p.m. The Postal Service is also eliminating the optional 10:30 a.m. delivery time.
The revisions to the Priority Mail Express service guarantee delivery times and elimination of the optional 10:30 a.m. delivery time will enable the Postal Service to improve the quality of service and provide a more efficient customer experience.
The Postal Service adopts the following changes to
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
Items are delivered by 6 p.m. on the next delivery day. * * *
Except for Priority Mail Express mailpieces containing cremated remains, under Hold for Pickup service, items presented under 4.2 are available for pickup by the addressee at the destination facility by 6:00 p.m. of the next day that the destination office is open for retail business.
Items are delivered by 6 p.m. on the second delivery day. If delivery is not made, the addressee is notified. A reminder notice is left on the third day after the attempted delivery. A second delivery is attempted only upon customer request.
Except for Priority Mail Express mailpieces containing cremated remains, under Hold for Pickup service, items presented under 4.3 are available for pickup by the addressee at the destination facility by 6:00 p.m. of the second delivery day that the destination office is open for retail business.
Except for items endorsed “Guaranteed by End of Day” per an approved customer agreement, items are delivered by 6 p.m. on the next delivery day. If delivery is not made, the addressee is notified. A reminder notice is left on the third day after the attempted delivery. A second delivery is attempted only upon customer request.
Except for Priority Mail Express mailpieces containing cremated remains, under Hold for Pickup service, items presented under 4.2 are available for pickup by the addressee at the destination facility by 6 p.m. of the next day that the destination office is open for retail business.
Except for items endorsed “Guaranteed by End of Day” per an approved customer agreement, items are delivered by 6 p.m. on the second delivery day. If delivery is not made, the addressee is notified. A reminder notice is left on the third day after the attempted delivery. A second delivery is attempted only upon customer request.
Except for Priority Mail Express mailpieces containing cremated remains, under Hold for Pickup service, items presented under 4.3 are available for pickup by the addressee at the destination facility by 6 p.m. of the second delivery day that the destination office is open for retail business.
A refund for postage and fees may be made:
e. Under 9.5 for Priority Mail Express postage and Sunday/holiday premium fee refunds.
A customer may apply for refunds under 9.2, as follows:
a.
For Priority Mail Express 1-Day and 2-Day Delivery, the USPS refunds the postage and Sunday or holiday premium fee for an item not delivered, for an item for which delivery was not attempted, or if the item was not made available for claim by the delivery date and time specified at the time of mailing, subject to the standards for this service, unless the delay was caused by one of the situations in 9.5.5.
Under PMEMS, items mailed to APO/FPO and DPO destinations (from the United States) are available for delivery at the destination APO/FPO or DPO Post Office by 6:00 p.m. on the designated delivery day.
Under PMEMS, items mailed from APO/FPO and DPO locations (going to the United States) are delivered to an addressee within the delivery area of the destination Post Office by 6:00 p.m. on the designated delivery day.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) on behalf of the State of West Virginia (WV). This revision pertains to West Virginia's plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the West Virginia portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH area (Wheeling Area) comprising Marshall and Ohio Counties. EPA is approving these revisions to the West Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on April 30, 2021.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0198. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Keila M. Pagán-Incle, 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) 814-2926. Ms. Pagán-Incle can also be reached via electronic mail at
On June 29, 2020 (85 FR 38831), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of West Virginia's plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS through June 14, 2027, in accordance with CAA section 175A. The formal SIP revision was submitted by WVDEP on December 10, 2019.
On May 15, 2007 (72 FR 27247, effective June 14, 2007), EPA approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from WVDEP for the Wheeling Area. Per 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 June 29, 2020 NPRM, consistent with longstanding EPA's guidance,
EPA received four comments on the June 29, 2020 NPRM. All comments received are in the docket for this rulemaking action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided herein.
We also do not agree with the commenter's contentions about West Virginia using “assumptions that are against EPA's stated policy under NSPS and NESHAP,” or that EPA should require West Virginia to address the removal of protections the commenter alleges EPA has made under the MATS and Boiler MACT rules. The commenter does not identify how any NSPS or NESHAP “policies” impact this action, or which policies, NESHAPs or NSPS the commenter believes are relevant to this action. With respect to MATS and the Boiler MACT, the commenter incorrectly assumes that protections under those rules have been “removed.” In a 2020 rulemaking, EPA found that it was not “appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions from coal- and oil-fired Electrical Generating Units (EGUs), thereby reversing the Agency's previous conclusion under CAA section 112(n)(1)(A). 85 FR 31286 (May 22, 2020). This action did not, however, remove the EGUs covered by MATS from regulation. EPA explicitly stated that coal- and oil-fired EGUs would remain on the CAA section 112(c)(1) source category list, and that the CAA section 112(d) standards for those EGUs, as promulgated in the MATS rule, would be unaffected by its reversal of the “appropriate and necessary” finding because EPA had not met the statutorily required CAA section 112(c)(9) delisting criteria to remove these units from regulation. 85 FR at 31286 (May 22, 2020).
The modeling cited by the commenter was referenced in West Virginia's submission and as part of EPA's proposed approval as supplementary supporting information, and we do not agree that the commenter's concerns about relying on that modeling are warranted. The commenter contends that the modeling only goes out three years (to 2023) and it needs to go out to 10 years, and therefore may not be relied upon. However, the air quality modeling TSD was only relied upon by EPA to provide additional support to indicate that the area is expected to continue to attain the NAAQS during the relevant period. As noted above, West Virginia primarily met the requirement to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by showing that they met the criteria for a limited maintenance plan, rather than by modeling or projecting emissions inventories out to a future year. We also do not agree that the State is required to demonstrate maintenance for 10 years; CAA section 175A requires the State to demonstrate maintenance through the 20th year after the area is redesignated, which in this case is 2027.
We also disagree with the commenter's contention that because the air quality modeling TSD was performed to analyze the transport of pollution across state lines with respect to other ozone NAAQS, it cannot be relied upon in this action. We acknowledge that the air quality modeling TSD at issue was performed as part of EPA's efforts to address interstate transport pollution under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, the purpose of the air quality modeling TSD is fully in keeping with the question of whether West Virginia is expected to maintain the NAAQS. The air quality modeling TSD identifies which air quality monitors in the United States are projected to have problems attaining or maintaining the 2008 and 2015 NAAQS for ozone in 2023. Because the air quality modeling TSD results simply provide projected ozone concentration design values, which are expressed as three-year averages of the annual fourth high 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations, the modeling results are useful for analyzing attainment and maintenance of any of the ozone NAAQS that are measured using this averaging time; in this case, the 1997, 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. The only difference between the three standards
The commenter asserts that many groups have criticized EPA's transport modeling, alleging that the agency used improper emissions inventories, incorrect contribution thresholds, wrong modeling years, or that EPA has not accounted for local situations or reductions that occurred after the inventories were established. The commenter also alleges that EPA should not rely on its modeling because it “fails to stand up to the recent court decisions,” citing the
EPA is approving the 1997 ozone NAAQS limited maintenance plan for the Wheeling, WV-OH area comprising Marshall and Ohio Counties as a revision to the West Virginia 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);
• 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 June 1, 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 pertaining to West Virginia's limited maintenance plan for the Wheeling, WV-OH area comprising Marshall and Ohio Counties may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
We, the NMFS, are delaying the effective date of a final rule that published on December 20, 2019.
As of March 31, 2021, the effective date of the rule amending 50 CFR part 223 that published at 84 FR 70048 on December 20, 2019, is delayed until August 1, 2021.
Jennifer Lee, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5312, or email:
On December 20, 2019, we published a final rule to amend the alternative tow time restriction to require all skimmer trawl vessels 40 feet and greater in length to use turtle excluder devices (TEDs) designed to exclude small sea turtles in their nets, and that rule had an effective date of April 1, 2021 (84 FR 70048). The final rule amends regulations at 50 CFR part 223 under the authority of the Endangered Species Act. The purpose of the final rule is to reduce incidental bycatch and mortality of sea turtles in the southeastern U.S. shrimp fisheries, and to aid in the protection and recovery of listed sea turtle populations. The rule also amends the definition of tow time to better clarify the intent and purpose of tow times to reduce sea turtle mortality, and it refines additional portions of the TED requirements to avoid potential confusion. We delayed the effectiveness of the final rule until April 1, 2021, to allow for the manufacture of the necessary number of TEDs and for fishers, particularly lower income fishers, to prepare financially for the regulation.
We typically conduct outreach on changes to TED regulations through in-person industry workshops and trade shows, dockside and net shop visits, and enforcement trainings. In our final rule we stated that we would be scheduling and announcing future TED training workshops. We also distributed a Fishery Bulletin to industry
We are now delaying the effective date of the final rule published on December 20, 2019, (84 FR 70048) until August 1, 2021. Safety and travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic have limited our ability to complete the in-person workshops and training sessions that we had anticipated and communicated to the public. This delay in effective date is necessary to provide us with additional time to conduct our planned outreach and training for fishers through a modified strategy, including but not limited to, virtual training sessions with the public. In addition to generally educating the public on the use of the devices, it will help prepare us for responding to installation and maintenance problems from industry when the regulations go in effect. This will allow fishers to be better prepared for compliance with regulations and reduce the likelihood of potential increased sea turtle deaths caused by widespread use of improperly constructed and/or installed TEDs.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) finds that there is good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary delay is unnecessary and would be contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule that published at 84 FR 70048 on December 20, 2019, has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of this delay in the effective date of the previously noticed regulations. Providing additional prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because there is a need to implement immediately this action to delay the April 1, 2021, effective date of the final rule and to provide notice of the delay to affected fishery participants. Making the requirements effective before fishers are properly educated and trained regarding the devices could lead to improper installation and use, which could lead to greater harm to listed sea turtles. We are temporarily delaying the effective date of the rule (see
For these same reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, by non-Rockfish Program catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2021 Chinook salmon prohibited species catch limit established for non-Rockfish Program catcher vessels using trawl gear and directed fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 26, 2021, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2021.
Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2021 Chinook salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) limit for non-Rockfish Program catcher vessels directed fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, using trawl gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA is 3,060 Chinook salmon (§ 679.21(h)(4)(i)(C)).
In accordance with § 679.21(h)(8)(ii), the Regional Administrator has determined that the 2021 Chinook salmon PSC limit established for non-Rockfish Program catcher vessels directed fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, using trawl gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for groundfish (except for pollock) by non-Rockfish Program catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA.
While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at 50 CFR 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay is prohibiting directed fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, by non-Rockfish Program catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 25, 2021.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; denial.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking, submitted by Mr. Michael Taylor (the petitioner), dated December 3, 2018. The petition was docketed by the NRC on March 4, 2019, and was assigned Docket No. PRM-50-118. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations regarding the measurement standards used at U.S. nuclear power plants. The NRC is denying the petition because the NRC's current regulations and oversight activities provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety.
The docket for PRM-50-118 is closed on March 31, 2021.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0071 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:
•
•
•
Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-3781, email:
Section 2.802 of title 10 of the
The petitioner is concerned that U.S. nuclear power plants are not required to use or have internal metrology or calibration laboratories that are certified under an accrediting organization such as the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, or similar accrediting body, as a part of normal and required operations. The petitioner states that, because of this lack of accreditation, certain important factors are not currently considered in measurements conducted at nuclear power plants, including the ratio of measurement standards to units under test. The petitioner contends that this leads to an unresolved safety issue for Quality (safety-related) measurements in particular. The petitioner also states that existing internal quality assurance and documents and standards currently in use for inspections and audits do not adequately address this concern.
The NRC published the notice of receipt and request for public comment in the
The NRC reviewed and considered the public comments received in making its decision to deny the PRM. The NRC response follows a short summary of each comment.
The NRC is denying the petition because the petition does not raise a significant safety or security concern that would warrant the requested changes to the NRC's regulations. To reach this determination, the staff evaluated the merits of the petition, public comments received, the immediacy of any safety concerns raised by the petition, and the NRC's relevant past decisions and current policies. Specifically, staff considered existing NRC requirements for the control of measuring and test equipment. Although the NRC does not require nuclear power plant laboratories to be certified by accrediting organizations, their programs for safety-related measuring and test equipment calibration must meet the requirements in 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” appendix B, “Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants,” criterion XII, “Control of Measuring and Test Equipment,” and their programs are subject to NRC inspection. The NRC inspections provide additional assurance that licensees are adequately implementing the requirements of criterion XII of appendix B to 10 CFR part 50 to measure and test equipment programs through direct inspection of calibration and testing activities. These direct inspections ensure that measurement calculations are being adequately performed.
Any safety-related calibrations or measurements that are performed at metrology laboratories utilized by nuclear power plants would fall under these requirements. The requirements for the training of nuclear power plant personnel performing safety-related activities are covered by criterion II, “Quality Assurance Program,” of appendix B to 10 CFR part 50. Any personnel performing safety-related calibrations in an onsite laboratory or at a metrology laboratory utilized by nuclear power plants would fall under these requirements.
In addition, the NRC conducted an independent search of all license event reports and greater-than-green inspection findings from 2015 onward and did not identify any examples of safety issues caused by improper calibrations of measurement and test equipment at nuclear power plant internal laboratories or by the lack of laboratory certification requirements.
In summary, the NRC is denying the petition because the petition does not raise a significant safety or security concern. The requested amendments to NRC regulations are not necessary because existing NRC regulations and inspection procedures provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety.
For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC is denying PRM-50-118. The NRC has concluded that its existing regulations provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
On February 26, 2021, the NCUA Board (Board) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the
The comment period for the proposed rule published February 26, 2021, at 86 FR 11645, is extended. Responses to the proposed rule must now be received on or before April 30, 2021.
You may submit written comments, identified by RIN 3133-AE95, by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
On January 14, 2021, the Board issued a proposed rule to amend the NCUA's CUSO regulation. The proposed rule was published in the
The proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period that closed on March 29, 2021. The NCUA received over 600 comments on the proposed rule. Given the number of comments received and a stated interest in an extension of the comment period, the Board believes there is significant interest in the proposed rule and that it is necessary to extend the comment period to give all interested parties sufficient time to properly address the proposed changes and questions presented in the proposed rule. The Board believes that extending the comment period for an additional 30 days is appropriate. This extension should allow interested parties more time to prepare responses to the proposed rule without delaying the rulemaking.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating requirements for the CSX Transportation Railroad drawbridge across Bayou Sara, mile 0.1 near Saraland, Mobile County, Alabama. This proposed rule allows the bridge owner to operate the bridge remotely from the CSX remote control center in Mobile, AL.
Comments and relate material must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 27, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2019-0910 using Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Doug Blakemore. Eighth Coast Guard District Bridge Administration Branch Chief; telephone (504) 671-2128, email
The CSX Railroad Company, the owner of the bridge requested to change operation of the bridge from a tended drawbridge to a remotely operated drawbridge. The CSX Transportation Railroad drawbridge has a vertical clearance of 5' in the closed to navigation position and operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.105. This proposed rule will not change the operation schedule of the bridge. A copy of the bridge owners request can be found at
The waterway users include recreational vessels and commercial tows; which combined requires approximately six openings a day.
CSX has completed installation of a remote operation system at the bridge and a remote control center, located in Mobile, AL. At the bridge, CSX has installed infrared cameras, closed circuit cameras and TVs, communication systems and information technology systems on the bridge that allow an operator from Mobile to monitor and control the bridge. They have also developed an operations manual that remote operators use to control each bridge.
In the future, CSX anticipates to remotely operate an additional ten drawbridges from the CSX remote control center. As a general rule the Coast Guard will consider allowing one (1) remote operator to control up to three (3) separate bridges. This is dependent on the type of vessels that use the waterways, vessel traffic volume and environmental or geographical conditions of each bridge and waterway.
On January 22, 2020 the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments (TD) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Bayou Sara, Saraland, AL in the
Given the duration of time from the end of the test period and the development of this NPRM, the Coast Guard is authorizing second deviation to re-test the remote operations of the bridge and its effect on waterway mobility in that area. However, this deviation will run for 180 days and simultaneously with this NPRM. Both under the same docket number. Both documents can be found at
During the 60 day test period, the Coast Guard did not identify any issues with the remote operation of the bridge or any negative impact to a vessels reasonable ability to use this waterway. The Coast Guard received two comments from the public during the test period. These comments can be viewed in the Docket and have been addressed throughout this NPRM or below. These comments have been summarized and evaluated by the Coast Guard.
One of the comments received expressed concern that remote operation systems have not been proven. Under 33 CFR 117.42 the Coast Guard has authorized a number of drawbridge to be remotely operated with successful results. Safety is a priority and the bridge must operate as if a drawtender were present at the bridge.
The same commenter had safety concerns that without drawtenders on site, maintenance, repairs, inspections and vessel assistance through the bridge would not be conducted. In accordance with CSX procedures, drawtenders are not allowed to perform these actions. There are also concerns about unreported strikes of the bridge by vessels and potential trespassers at the bridge. CSX has cameras at the bridge and given that the bridge operating schedule is open on demand, the bridge must be monitored 24 hours a day. Also, vessels are required to report certain marine incidents and casualties and local law enforcement will be alerted if there is illegal activity at the bridge.
Another comment recommended that the bridge remain in the open to navigation position and close when a train is approaching. Coast Guard will consider this option and discuss with CSX during the comment and test period.
33 CFR 117.42 sets Coast Guard drawbridge regulations. This regulation authorizes the Coast Guard District Commander to approve operations from a remote site. CSX has requested to operate the CSX Transportation Bridge across Bayou Sara from the CSX remote control center in Mobile, AL. The waterway users include recreational vessels requires approximately six openings a day.
Presently, the bridge opens on signal for the passage of vessels in accordance with 33 CFR 117.105 and this proposed rule will not change that operating schedule. This proposed rule will also not change how a request to open the bridge will be conducted. Mariners requiring an opening may do so by contacting the CSX remote control center on Channels 13/16 or by the phone number posted at the bridge.
The Coast Guard has visited the CSX remote control center several times and has confirmed that the remote operating system is effective. This proposed rule allows CSX to control the drawbridge from their remote control center and requires CSX to have the capability, including resources and manpower to return the operator to the bridge location within 3 hours following any of the below situations:
• Any component of the remote operations system fails and prevents the remote operator from being able to visually identify vessels, communicate with vessels, detect vessels immediately underneath the bridge or visually identify trains approaching the bridge.
• CSX fails to meet Federal Railway Administration (FRA) or any other government agency safety requirements.
• Anytime that CSX procedures, equipment or operators fail to safely open and close the bridge fail.
• At the direction of the District Commander.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize its analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discusses First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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 with the bridge operator controlling the bridge from a remote location.
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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121),
This proposed rule would call 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 proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, the Coast Guard does discuss the effects of this proposed 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) and have made. 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 proposed rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are 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. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) The draw of the CSX Transportation Railroad bridge, mile 0.1 near Saraland,
AL shall be remotely operated by the bridge operator at CSX's bridge remote control center in Mobile, Alabama. Closed Circuit TVs, infrared detectors, communications systems and information technology systems have been installed at the bridge. Vessels can contact the CSX bridge operator via VHF-FM channel 13 or by telephone at the number displayed on the signs posted at the bridge to request an opening of the draw.
(b) CSX will return the operator to the bridge location within 3 hours following any of the below situations:
(1) Any component of the remote operations system fails and prevents the remote operator from being able to visually identify vessels, communicate with vessels, detect vessels immediately underneath the bridge or visually identify trains approaching the bridge.
(2) CSX fails to meet Federal Railway Administration (FRA) or any other government agency safety requirements.
(3) Anytime that CSX procedures, equipment or operators fail to safely open and close the bridge fail.
(4) Anytime at the direction of the District Commander.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision formally submitted by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a state's SIP must include an emission statement regulation that requires stationary sources in ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal or above to report annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
Written comments must be received on or before April 30, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0554 at
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
Under the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for criteria pollutants in order to protect human health and the environment. In response to scientific evidence linking ozone exposure to adverse health effects, EPA promulgated the first ozone NAAQS, the 0.12 part per million (ppm) 1-hour ozone NAAQS, in 1979. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). The CAA requires EPA to review and reevaluate the NAAQS every five years in order to consider updated information regarding the effects of the criteria pollutants on human health and the environment. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised ozone NAAQS, referred to as the 1997 ozone NAAQS, of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. 62 FR 38856. This 8-hour ozone NAAQS was determined to be more protective of public health than the previous 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In 2008, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). In 2015, EPA further lowered the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm. The 0.070 ppm standard is referred to as the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 65452 (October 26, 2015).
On June 4, 2018 and July 25, 2018, EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 83 FR 25776 and 83 FR 35136. Effective August 3, 2018 (83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018), New Castle County, Delaware, was designated as marginal nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. New Castle County was designated as part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area, which includes the following counties: New Castle in Delaware; Cecil in Maryland; Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean, and Salem in New Jersey; and Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania.
Section 182 of the CAA identifies plan submissions and requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Specifically, CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) requires that states develop and submit, as a revision to their SIP, rules which establish annual emission reporting requirements for certain stationary sources. Sources that are within ozone nonattainment areas must annually report the actual emissions of NO
EPA published guidance on source emissions statements in a July 1992 memorandum titled, “Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission Statement Program”
According to the preamble to EPA's 2018 final rule, most areas that are required to have an emissions statement program for the 2015 ozone NAAQS already have one in place due to a nonattainment designation for an earlier ozone NAAQS. 83 FR 62998, 63001 (December 6, 2018). EPA's 2018 final rule states that, “Many air agencies already have regulations in place to address certain nonattainment area planning requirements due to nonattainment designations for a prior ozone NAAQS. Air agencies should review any existing regulation that was previously approved by the EPA to determine whether it is sufficient to fulfill obligations triggered by the revised ozone NAAQS.” Id. In cases where an existing emissions statement rule is still adequate to meet the emissions statement requirement under the 2015 ozone NAAQS, states may provide the rationale for that determination to EPA in a written statement for approval into the SIP to meet the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). 83 FR 62998, 63002 (December 6, 2018). In this statement, states should identify how the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) are met by their existing emissions statement rule. Id. In summary, Delaware can submit, as a formal revision to its SIP, a statement certifying that the State's existing emissions statement program satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and covers the State's portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
On August 3, 2020, Delaware, through DNREC, submitted as a formal SIP revision, a statement certifying that Delaware's existing SIP-approved emissions statement program satisfies the emissions statements requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and is at least as stringent as the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). The provisions that implement Delaware's emissions statements program are under 7 DE Administrative Code 1117 Section 7.0 Emission Statement and were approved by EPA into the Delaware SIP on April 29, 1996 (61 FR 7415, February 28, 1996). See 40 CFR 52.420(c). Table 1 summarizes Delaware's emissions statements provisions and the corresponding CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) requirements.
EPA's review
EPA also proposes to determine that Delaware's emissions thresholds for stationary sources that are required to submit an emissions statement meet the threshold requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii). As discussed previously, pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii), states may waive emissions statements requirements for classes or categories of stationary sources that emit less than 25 tpy of NO
EPA has determined that the SIP-approved provisions under 7 DE Administrative Code 1117 Section 7.0 satisfy the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve, as a SIP revision, the State of Delaware's, August 3, 2020 emissions statements certification for the 2015 ozone NAAQS as approvable under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B).
EPA is proposing to approve, as a SIP revision, the State of Delaware's August 3, 2020 emissions statements certification for the 2015 ozone NAAQS as approvable under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). Delaware's emissions statements certification certifies that Delaware's existing SIP-approved emissions statements program under 7 DE Administrative Code 1117 Section 7.0 satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Under the CAA, the EPA Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rulemaking, in which EPA is proposing approval of Delaware's certification that its existing emission statement program satisfies the emission statement requirements of the CAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; correction.
This document corrects the comment due date for the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements of a proposed rule published in the
June 1, 2021.
In proposed rule FR Doc. 2021-03043, beginning on page 9894 in the issue of February 17, 2021, make the following correction in the Dates section. On page 9894 in the second column, the second sentence is corrected to read:
“Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before June 1, 2021.”
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Video Division has before it a petition for rulemaking filed November 27, 2020 (Petition) by KHQA Licensee, LLC (Licensee), the licensee of KHQA-TV (CBS), channel 7, Hannibal, Missouri. The Licensee requests the substitution of channel 22 for channel 7 at Hannibal, Missouri in the digital television (DTV) Table of Allotments.
Comments must be filed on or before April 30, 2021 and reply comments on or before May 17, 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: Paul A. Cicelski, Esq., Lerman Senter PLLC, 2001 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1647 or Joyce
In support of its channel substitution request, the Licensee states that the Commission has recognized that VHF channels have certain propagation characteristics which may cause reception issues for some viewers, and that the reception of VHF signals require larger antennas relative to UHF channels. According to the Licensee, KHQA-TV has received numerous complaints from viewers unable to receive its signal and the Licensee's channel substitution proposal will result in more effective building penetration for indoor antenna reception and greatly improve the Station's ability to provide ATSC 3.0 service to homes, vehicles, and portable devices. The Licensee further states that there would be no loss of service. We believe that the Licensee's channel substitution proposal warrants consideration. Channel 22 can be substituted for channel 7 at Hannibal, Missouri as proposed, in compliance with the principal community coverage requirements of the Commission's rules at coordinates 39-58-22.0 N and 91-19-55.0 W. In addition, we find that this channel change meets the technical requirements set forth in our regulations.
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) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Proposed rule.
We propose to approve sector operations plans and contracts, and grant regulatory exemptions for fishing years 2021 and 2022, provide preliminary Northeast multispecies annual catch entitlements to approved sectors for fishing year 2021, amend regulations required to administer electronic monitoring, and announce 2021 default specifications for seven Northeast multispecies stocks. Approval of sector operations plans and contracts is necessary to allocate annual catch entitlements to the sectors for sectors to operate. This action is intended to allow limited access permit holders to continue to operate or form sectors, as authorized under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, and to exempt sectors from certain effort control regulations to improve the efficiency and economics of sector vessels. We also announce our determination that electronic monitoring is sufficient for use instead of at-sea monitors to meet sector monitoring and reporting requirements. Lastly, we announce default specifications for Gulf of Maine winter flounder, Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder, redfish, ocean pout, Atlantic wolffish, Eastern Georges Bank cod, and Eastern Georges Bank haddock.
Written comments must be received on or before April 15, 2021.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0024, by the following method:
•
Copies of each sector's proposed operations plan and contract are available from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office: Contact Claire Fitz-Gerald at
To review
Claire Fitz-Gerald, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9255.
The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) defines a sector as a group of persons holding limited access Northeast multispecies permits who have voluntarily entered into a contract and agree to certain fishing restrictions for a specified period of time, and which has been granted a TAC(s) [
The Northeast multispecies sector management system allocates a portion of the Northeast multispecies stocks to each sector. These annual sector allocations are known as annual catch entitlements (ACE) and are based on the collective fishing history of a sector's members. Sectors may receive allocations of large-mesh Northeast multispecies stocks with the exception of Atlantic halibut, windowpane flounder, Atlantic wolffish, and ocean pout, which are non-allocated species managed under separate effort controls. ACEs are portions of a stock's annual catch limit (ACL) available to commercial Northeast multispecies vessels. A sector determines how to harvest its ACE.
Because sectors elect to receive an allocation under a quota-based system, the FMP grants sector vessels several “universal” exemptions from the FMP's effort controls. These universal exemptions apply to: Trip limits on allocated stocks; Northeast multispecies days-at-sea (DAS) restrictions; the requirement to use a 6.5-inch (16.5-centimeters (cm)) mesh codend when fishing with selective gear on Georges Bank (GB); and portions of the Gulf of Maine (GOM) Cod Protection Closures. The FMP prohibits sectors from requesting exemptions from permitting restrictions, gear restrictions designed to minimize habitat impacts, and most reporting requirements.
In addition to the approved sectors, there are several state-operated permit banks, which receive allocations based on the history of the permits owned by the states. The final rule implementing Amendment 17 to the FMP allowed a state-operated permit bank to receive an allocation without needing to comply with the administrative and procedural requirements for sectors (77 FR 16942; March 23, 2012). Instead, permit banks are required to submit a list of participating permits to us, as specified in the permit bank's Memorandum of Agreement, to determine the ACE allocated to the permit bank. These allocations may be leased to fishermen enrolled in sectors. State-operated permit banks are no longer approved through the sector approval process, but current state-operated permit banks contribute to the total allocation under the sector system.
We received operations plans and preliminary contracts for fishing years 2021 and 2022 from 16 sectors. The operations plans are similar to operations plans and contracts previously approved for prior fishing years. The operations plans include 19 exemptions previously requested by sectors, and approved by NMFS, in fishing year 2020. One sector's operations plan also includes a new exemption request for fishing year 2021. We have made a preliminary determination that the 16 sector operations plans and contracts that we received, and the 19 previously approved regulatory exemptions requested, are consistent with the FMP's goals and objectives, and meet sector requirements outlined in the regulations at § 648.87. We are not approving the new sector exemption requested for fishing year 2021. Copies of the operations plans and contracts, and the environmental assessment (EA), are available at:
This rulemaking also announces our determination that electronic monitoring (EM) is sufficient for use instead of at-sea monitors (ASM) to meet sector monitoring requirements.
Last year, Framework 59 to the FMP set fishing year 2021 catch limits for 15 groundfish stocks (85 FR 45794; July 30, 2020). The 2021 catch limits for most stocks remain the same as, or similar, to 2020 limits. Framework 59 did not specify a 2021 catch limit for GOM winter flounder, Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) winter flounder, redfish, ocean pout, Atlantic wolffish, Eastern GB cod, or Eastern GB haddock. Eastern GB cod and haddock are management units of the GB cod and GB haddock stocks that NMFS manages jointly with Canada, and the shared quota is set annually.
This year, in Framework 61 to the FMP, the Council adopted new or adjusted fishing year 2021 catch limits for: GB haddock; GB yellowtail flounder; GB winter flounder; GOM winter flounder; SNE/MA winter flounder; redfish; Northern windowpane flounder; Southern windowpane flounder; ocean pout; Atlantic halibut; and Atlantic wolffish. Framework 61 would set 2021 catch limits for the two U.S./Canada stocks (Eastern GB cod and Eastern GB haddock). It would adjust the breakdown of sub-components for GB cod, GOM cod, SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, CC/GOM yellowtail flounder, witch flounder, and white hake. Framework 61 also included the exemption for sector vessels to target redfish with codend mesh as small as 5.5 inches (13.97 cm) as a universal exemption. We are working to publish a proposed rule to request comments on the Framework 61 measures once the Council submits the action to us for review and approval. We do not expect we will not be able to implement Framework 61 measures, if approved, before May 1, 2021.
As a result, this rule announces the 2021 catch limits set in Framework 59 that would be effective on May 1, 2021, including preliminary sector and common pool allocations based on final 2020 fishing year rosters (Table 1). If we approve Framework 61, the 2021 catch limits announced in this rule for these stocks will change.
The Framework 59 fishing year 2021 ACL for GB yellowtail flounder is 95.4 metric tons (mt), which will be in place on May 1. The Council recommended a fishing year 2021 ACL of 63.6 mt for GB yellowtail flounder in Framework 61. This is a 33-percent decrease, which will go into effect after May 1 if Framework 61 is approved. The Council also revised the fishing year 2021 ACL for GOM cod to 270.4 mt. This a 2-percent decrease from the fishing year 2021 ACL previously set in Framework 59. The adjustments are based on the recommendation of the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee, which is the joint U.S./Canada management body that meets annually to recommend shared quotas for the three transboundary stocks. The Council's recommendations will be further discussed in the Framework 61 proposed rule. We are highlighting these changes in this rule because the GB yellowtail flounder and GOM cod sector allocations proposed in this rule are based on the higher 2021 catch limits previously approved in Framework 59. If the Council's recommended catch limits become final with no changes, ACE for these stocks will be reduced when Framework 61 is implemented.
This rule also announces default catch limits for GOM winter flounder, SNE/MA winter flounder, redfish, ocean pout, Atlantic wolffish, Eastern GB cod, and Eastern GB haddock. These stocks do not already have a catch limit in place for fishing year 2021. The groundfish regulations implement default catch limits for any stock for which final specifications are not in place by the beginning of the fishing year on May 1. The FMP's default specifications provision sets catch at 35 percent of the previous year's (2020) catch limits, except in instances where the default catch limit would exceed the Council's recommendation. The fishing year 2021 state waters and other sub-components specified for redfish in Framework 59 exceed the Council's fishing year 2021 redfish recommendation in Framework 61. These sub-components would be reduced accordingly. The default catch limit would be effective from May 1 through July 31, or until the final rule for Framework 61 is implemented if prior to July 31. To comply with these regulations and minimize impacts on the fishery we are announcing these default specifications. If Framework 61 is not in place on or before July 31, all fishing for these stocks would be prohibited beginning August 1.
The sector allocations proposed in this rule are based on the 2021 catch limits established in Framework 59 and final fishing year 2020 sector rosters. Regulations require that sectors submit membership information to us on December 1 prior to the start of the fishing year, unless instructed otherwise. The Regional Administrator has determined that the December 1 enrollment deadline is not possible because we had yet to distribute the annual letter describing each vessel's potential contribution to a sector's quota for the upcoming fishing year. We distributed the letters in early February 2021. The deadline to enroll in a sector is approximately 4 weeks later, on March 8, 2021, although sectors may set a more restrictive deadline for their members. Because sector enrollment has been stable and consistent since the sector program was enacted, we are using fishing year 2020 rosters as a proxy for fishing year 2021 sector membership to calculate fishing year 2021 projected allocations in this proposed rule.
Any permits that change ownership after the enrollment deadline determined by the Regional Administrator as described above retain the ability to join a sector through April 30, 2021. All permits enrolled in a sector, and the vessels associated with those permits, have until April 30, 2021, to withdraw from a sector and fish in the common pool for fishing year 2021. For fishing year 2022, we will set similar roster deadlines, notify permit holders of the fishing year 2022 deadlines, and allow permit holders to change sectors separate from the annual sector operations plans approval process.
We calculate the sector's allocation for each stock by summing its members' potential sector contributions (PSC) for a stock and then multiplying that total percentage by the available commercial sub-ACL for that stock. Table 2 shows the projected total fishing year 2021 PSC by stock for the 16 sectors approved to operate in fishing year 2020 that submitted operations plans for 2021. Tables 3 and 4 show the initial allocations that each sector would be allocated for fishing year 2021 based on their final fishing year 2020 rosters and the fishing year 2021 Framework 59 and default specifications. At the start of the 2021 fishing year, we provide final allocations, to the nearest pound, to each sector based on their final May 1 rosters. We use these final allocations, along with later adjustments for ACE transfers, reductions for overages, or increases for carryover from fishing year 2020, to monitor sector catch. We have included the preliminary common pool sub-ACLs in tables 2 through 4 for comparison. These tables do not represent the final allocations for the 2021 fishing year.
We do not assign a permit separate PSCs for Eastern GB cod or Eastern GB haddock; instead, we assign each permit a PSC for the GB cod stock and GB haddock stock. Each sector's GB cod and GB haddock allocations are then divided into an Eastern ACE and a Western ACE, based on each sector's percentage of the GB cod and GB haddock ACLs. For example, if a sector is allocated 4 percent of the GB cod ACL and 6 percent of the GB haddock ACL, the sector is allocated 4 percent of the commercial Eastern U.S./Canada Area GB cod total allowable catch (TAC) and 6 percent of the commercial Eastern U.S./Canada Area GB haddock TAC as its Eastern GB cod and haddock ACEs. These amounts are then subtracted from the sector's overall GB cod and haddock allocations to determine its Western GB cod and haddock ACEs. A sector may only harvest its Eastern GB cod and haddock ACEs in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area, but may “convert,” or transfer, its Eastern GB cod or haddock allocation into Western GB allocation and fish that converted ACE outside the Eastern GB area.
At the start of fishing year 2021, we may withhold 20 percent of each sector's fishing year 2021 allocation until we finalize fishing year 2020 catch information. We expect to finalize 2020 catch information in summer 2021. We allow sectors to transfer fishing year 2020 ACE for 2 weeks upon our completion of year-end catch accounting to reduce or eliminate any fishing year 2020 overages. If necessary, we reduce any sector's fishing year 2021 allocation to account for a remaining overage in fishing year 2020. Each year of the operations plans, we notify the Council and sector managers of this deadline in writing and announce our final ACE determination on our website at:
Using the process and authority granted to us in Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, and as described in regulations at § 648.87(b)(1)(v)(B), we have determined that the EM audit model is sufficient for use instead of ASM. In December 2019, we notified the New England Fishery Management Council of our intent to expand EM and allow sectors to submit an EM plan as part of the fishing years 2021-2022 sector operations plan approval process. Since 2016, we have worked with members of industry and other stakeholders to develop EM as a tool to meet sector monitoring requirements. We evaluated two models using exempted fishing permits (EFP): The audit model and maximized retention. Under the audit model, the captain records an estimated weight for all groundfish discards on an electronic vessel trip report (eVTR) and adheres to catch handling protocols at sea to ensure collection (
In order to facilitate the adoption of the EM audit model by sector vessels, we offered a NMFS-designed audit model program for sectors to include in their proposed operations plans. Under the NMFS-designed audit model program, vessels would be required to measure groundfish discards in view of cameras and use designated discard control points for all discards. The captain and crew would have the option to use subsampling protocols for high volumes of discards if included in the vessel's NMFS-approved VMP. Participating vessels would submit EM data from all trips to their sector's contracted third-party service provider in accordance with the timeline specified by NMFS (currently 7 days). A subset of trips would be selected for review. Third-party service provider staff would review and annotate EM data for selected trips, and submit a report detailing the results to NMFS, in accordance with program requirements. NMFS would compare the third-party service provider's report to the eVTR submitted by the captain to understand the accuracy of self-reporting by EM vessels. Estimates of groundfish discards reported by the captain on the eVTR and EM data collected by the third-party service provider would serve as the basis for catch accounting .
We are announcing our determination and supporting rationale in this proposed rule to facilitate public review of, and comment on, the monitoring plans included in the sector operations plans and contracts proposed in the following section. We will approve or disapprove each plan based on its sufficiency for sector catch accounting. Any EM program employed by a sector to meet monitoring and reporting requirements must adhere to the EM program standards described in the Fishing Years 2021-22 Sector Operations Plan, Contract, and EA Requirements guidance document located on our website:
We are also making regulatory adjustments, implemented under our section 305(d) authority in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to make changes necessary to carry out the FMP. We are making these adjustments to clarify the use of EM for sector monitoring as described in the regulations at § 648.87 and to ensure the FMP is implemented in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
There were 16 active groundfish sectors in fishing year 2020. All 16 active sectors submitted operations plans and contracts for approval for fishing years 2021 and 2022. We are proposing to approve 16 sector operations plans and contracts for fishing years 2021 and 2022. In order to approve a sector's operations plan for fishing years 2021 and 2022, we consider whether a sector's plan is consistent with regulatory requirements and FMP objectives, and whether it has been compliant with reporting requirements from previous years, including the year-end reporting requirements found at § 648.87(b)(1)(vi)(C). Approved operations plans, provided on our website as a single document for each sector, not only contain the rules under which each sector would fish, but also provide the legal contract that binds each member to the sector for the length of the sector's operations plan. Each sector's operations plan, and each sector's members, must comply with the regulations governing sectors, found at § 648.87. In addition, each sector must conduct fishing activities as detailed in its approved operations plan.
Participating vessels are required to comply with all pertinent Federal fishing regulations, except as specifically exempted in the letter of authorization (LOA) issued by the Regional Administrator, which details any approved sector exemptions from the regulations. If, during a fishing year, or between fishing years 2021 and 2022, a sector requests an exemption that we have already granted, or proposes a change to administrative provisions, we may amend the sector operations plans. Should any such amendments require modifications to LOAs, we would include these changes in updated LOAs and provide them to the appropriate sectors.
As in previous years, we retain the right to revoke exemptions in-season if: We determine that the exemption jeopardizes management measures, FMP objectives, or rebuilding efforts; the exemption results in unforeseen negative impacts on other managed fish stocks, habitat, or protected resources; the exemption causes enforcement concerns; catch from trips using the exemption cannot be adequately monitored; or a sector is not meeting certain administrative or operational requirements. If it becomes necessary to revoke an exemption, we will do so
Each sector is required to ensure that it does not exceed its ACE during the fishing year. Sector vessels are required to retain all legal-sized allocated Northeast multispecies stocks, unless a sector is granted an exemption allowing its member vessels to discard legal-sized unmarketable fish at sea. Catch (defined as landings and discards) of all allocated Northeast multispecies stocks by a sector's vessels count against the sector's allocation. Groundfish catch from a sector trip targeting non-groundfish species would be deducted from the sector's ACE because these are groundfish trips using gear capable of catching groundfish. Catch from a non-sector trip in an exempted fishery does not count against a sector's allocation and is assigned to a separate ACL sub-component to account for any groundfish bycatch that occurs in non-groundfish fisheries.
Each sector contract details the method for initial ACE sub-allocation to sector members. For fishing years 2021 and 2022, each sector has proposed that each active sector member could harvest an amount of fish equal to the amount each individual member's permit contributed to the sector, as modified by the sector for reserves or other management measures. Each sector operations plan submitted for fishing years 2021 and 2022 states that the sector would withhold an initial reserve from the sector's ACE sub-allocation to each individual member to prevent the sector from exceeding its ACE. A sector and sector members can be held jointly and severally liable for ACE overages, discarding legal-sized fish, and/or misreporting catch (landings or discards). Each sector contract provides procedures for sector enforcement of its rules, explains sector monitoring and reporting requirements, provides sector managers with the authority to issue stop fishing orders to sector members who violate provisions of the operations plan and contract, and presents a schedule of penalties that managers may levy on members for sector plan violations.
Sectors are required to monitor their allocations and catch. To help ensure that a sector does not exceed its ACE, each sector operations plan explains sector monitoring and reporting requirements, including a requirement to submit weekly catch reports to us. If a sector reaches an ACE threshold (specified in the operations plan), the sector must provide us with sector allocation usage reports on a daily basis. Once a sector's allocation for a particular stock is caught, that sector is required to cease all sector fishing operations in that stock area until it acquires more ACE, likely by an ACE transfer between sectors. Within 60 days of when we complete year-end catch accounting, each sector is required to submit an annual report detailing the sector's catch (landings and discards), sector enforcement actions, and pertinent information necessary to evaluate the biological, economic, and social impacts of each sector.
Sectors are responsible for designing, implementing, and funding a monitoring program that will provide the level of ASM coverage specified by NMFS for that year. We are required to determine a level of ASM coverage using a process described in Framework 55 (81 FR 26412; May 2, 2016) that provides a reliable estimate of overall catch by sectors needed for monitoring ACEs and ACLs while minimizing the cost burden to sectors and NMFS to the extent practicable. Sectors are responsible for the at-sea portion of costs associated with the sector's monitoring program(s), even in years when reimbursement funds are available.
In fishing years 2010 and 2011, we funded an ASM program with a target ASM coverage level of 30 percent of all trips. In addition, we provided 8-percent observer coverage through the Northeast Fishery Observer Program (NEFOP), which helps to support the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) and stock assessments. This resulted in an overall target coverage level of 38 percent for fishing years 2010 and 2011, from the combined ASM and NEFOP. Beginning in fishing year 2012, we have conducted an annual analysis to determine the total target coverage level. Table 5 depicts the annual target coverage levels. Industry has been required to pay for their ASM coverage costs since 2012, while we continued to fund NEFOP coverage. However, we were able to fund the industry's portion of ASM costs and NEFOP coverage in fishing years 2012 through most of 2015. Industry paid for their portion of the ASM program beginning in March 2016. In June 2016, after determining that the SBRM monitoring program could be fully funded with additional funding remaining, we announced that we had funds available to offset some of industry's costs of the groundfish ASM program in 2016. We reimbursed sectors for 85 percent of their ASM costs for 10 months of the fishing year, distributed through a grant by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. In fishing year 2017, using leftover funds from the 2016 grant, we reimbursed sectors for 60 percent of industry costs in fishing year 2017. Fishing effort was lower than expected in the first few months of the fishing year, and we were ultimately able to retroactively reimburse sectors for an additional estimated 25 percent of industry's 2017 costs, which exhausted the remaining available SBRM funds. In fiscal years 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, Congress appropriated $10.3 million for groundfish ASM. With these funds, we were able to fully reimburse industry costs in fishing years 2018, 2019, and 2020.
On March 20, 2020, we issued a fleet-wide observer waiver in response to local travel restrictions and limits on gatherings. During this time, we worked with monitoring service providers to develop observer redeployment plans, finalize internal policies to promote safe and effective redeployment, and conduct outreach to industry. We initiated the redeployment process on August 14, 2020. We are currently operating under two national level observer waivers. A vessel receives a waiver if an observer or ASM is not available for deployment; or the observer provider cannot meet the safety protocols imposed by a state on the commercial fishing crew or by the vessel or vessel company on its crew. Service provider companies have experienced significant staff attrition this year as a result of the limited amount of work available, and will need to hire additional staff to meet future specified coverage levels. Given the circumstances, we do not expect sectors to meet the 40 percent target coverage level in fishing year 2020. We expect to work with sectors and service provider companies through the remainder of the year to increase coverage levels to the extent possible, and to ensure they meet the specified coverage level when normal operations resume.
As announced in the previous section, we have determined that the EM audit model is sufficient to be used by vessels instead of ASM to meet sector monitoring requirements. Sector vessels may choose to use either ASM or the EM audit model to meet monitoring requirements, provided that the sector has a corresponding monitoring program approved as part of its operations plans, and we will no longer implement the EM audit model using an EFP. On January 26, 2021, we announced that the total target ASM coverage level will be 40 percent for fishing year 2021. Vessels that choose to use ASM to meet monitoring requirements would have a target coverage level of 40 percent for all sector groundfish trips. Vessels that choose to use EM to meet monitoring coverage requirements would use cameras and adhere to catch handling protocols as described in the VMP for all groundfish trips. Only a subset of the submitted trips would be selected for review to monitor groundfish discards for catch accounting. For fishing year 2021, NMFS would randomly select 50 percent of trips for review by a third-party service provider. A subset of the selected trips would undergo a secondary review by NMFS to monitor the third-party service provider's performance. The vessel owner or operator and the third-party service provider must provide the EM data for any given trip to NMFS, and its authorized officers and designees, upon request including, but not limited to, trips selected for secondary review. The fishing year 2022 selection rate for third-party review would be announced during fishing year 2021. The selection rate may vary annually based on vessel performance and less than 100 percent of trips would be reviewed, consistent with regulations at 50 CFR 648.87(b)(1)(v)(B)(
The draft operations plans submitted in October 2020 include industry-funded monitoring plans for fishing year 2021. As in previous years, we gave sectors the option to design their own monitoring program(s) in compliance with regulations or elect to adopt the NMFS-designed ASM and/or EM audit model program(s). The NMFS-designed ASM program is the same program that we have used in previous fishing years. In the event that we cannot approve a proposed monitoring program, we asked all sectors to include an option to select a current NMFS-designed monitoring program as a fail-safe.
All active sectors submitted an ASM plan as part of their draft operations plans. Similar to previous years, some sectors chose to use the NMFS-designed ASM program while others proposed programs of their own design. Sector-designed ASM programs for fishing years 2021 and 2022 were similar to those approved in past years.
Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1, 2, and 3; the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, the Maine Coast Community Sector, and Northeast Fishery Sectors (NEFS) 5, 10, 11, and 13 have proposed to use the NMFS-designed ASM program. We propose to approve this program for these sectors because it is consistent with goals and objectives of monitoring and regulatory requirements. Sectors that operate only as permit banks, and explicitly prohibit fishing in their operations plans, are not required to include provisions for an ASM program.
We propose to approve the ASM programs proposed by the remaining five active sectors, NEFS 2, 6, 7, 8, and 12, which state that they will: Contract with a NMFS-approved ASM provider; meet the specified coverage level; and utilize the Pre-Trip Notification System for random selection of monitored trips and notification to providers. These ASM programs also include additional protocols for ASM coverage waivers, incident reporting, and safety requirements for their sector managers and members. We have preliminarily determined that the proposed programs are consistent with the goals and objectives of ASM and regulatory requirements.
Seven sectors also submitted an EM plan as part of their draft operations plans. Of these sectors, six sectors, Sustainable Harvest Sectors 1, 2, and 3; the GB Cod Fixed Gear Sector, the Maine Coast Community Sector, and Northeast Fishery Sector 5, chose to use the NMFS-designed EM audit model program. We propose to approve this program for these sectors because it is consistent with goals and objectives of monitoring and regulatory requirements.
One sector, Northeast Fishery Sector 2, proposed an EM program of its own design. The proposed program maintained key elements of the NMFS-designed EM audit model program as the basis for its proposed EM program with modifications. We propose to approve NEFS 2's proposed program, which states that it will: Contract with an approved service provider; utilize PTNS as required; run cameras on 100 percent of groundfish trips for EM
We are granting exemptions from the following requirements for fishing years 2021 and 2022, all of which have been requested and granted in previous years:
(1) 120-day block out of the fishery required for Day gillnet vessels;
(2) 20-day spawning block out of the fishery required for all vessels;
(3) limits on the number of gillnets for Day gillnet vessels outside the GOM;
(4) prohibition on a vessel hauling another vessel's gillnet gear;
(5) limits on the number of gillnets that may be hauled on GB when fishing under a Northeast multispecies/monkfish DAS;
(6) limits on the number of hooks that may be fished;
(7) DAS Leasing Program length and horsepower restrictions;
(8) prohibition on discarding;
(9) gear requirements in the Eastern U.S./Canada Management Area;
(10) prohibition on a vessel hauling another vessel's hook gear;
(11) the requirement to declare an intent to fish in the Eastern U.S./Canada Special Access Program (SAP) and the Closed Area (CA) II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP prior to leaving the dock;
(12) seasonal restrictions for the Eastern U.S./Canada Haddock SAP;
(13) seasonal restrictions for the CA II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock SAP;
(14) sampling exemption;
(15) 6.5-inch minimum mesh size requirement for trawl nets to allow a 5.5-inch codend on directed redfish trips;
(16) prohibition on combining small-mesh exempted fishery and sector trips in SNE;
(17) extra-large mesh requirement to target dogfish on trips excluded from ASM in SNE and Inshore GB;
(18) requirement that Handgear A vessels carry a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) unit when fishing in a single broad stock area (BSA); and
(19) limits on the number of gillnets for Day gillnet vessels in the GOM.
A detailed description of the previously granted exemptions and supporting rationale can be found in the applicable final rules identified in Table 6 below.
For fishing year 2021, one sector requested a new exemption to allow sector vessels to use 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) mesh size to target groundfish in the GB BSA. Under current regulations, vessels are prohibited from fishing for groundfish with gillnets with mesh smaller than 6.5 inches (16.5 cm) in the GOM and GB Regulated Mesh Areas. Minimum mesh size restrictions (§ 648.80(a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(i), (b)(2)(i), and (c)(2)(i)) were implemented under previous groundfish actions to reduce overall mortality on groundfish stocks, change the selection pattern of the fishery to target larger fish, improve survival of sublegal fish, and allow sublegal fish more opportunity to spawn before entering the fishery.
Under the requested exemption, sector vessels would fish with gillnets as small as 6.0 inches (15.2 cm) in the GB BSA year-round. Vessels would restrict fishing activity to the GB BSA when fishing under the exemption. Vessels would be restricted to a maximum of 30 gillnets. Soak time would not exceed 24 hours and vessels would retrieve their gear at the end of each trip. Participating sectors would monitor exemption usage to ensure that haddock catch makes up 75 percent or more of the total catch, based on a running three trip average. The intent of the request is to allow vessels fishing with gillnets to target GB haddock, a healthy groundfish stock.
We previously approved similar exemptions in fishing years 2010-2012, which allowed vessels to use 6.0-inch (15.2-cm) mesh gillnets to target haddock in the Gulf of Maine, however, these exemptions were disapproved in 2013 (78 FR 25591; May 2, 2013) due to concerns about GOM haddock stock status, which was poor at the time, and potential impacts on protected species. Despite improved stock status of GOM haddock, we have not re-approved an exemption in the GOM because of concerns about bycatch of GOM cod, which is in poor condition.
We are denying the request in this year's sector operations plans. Sectors submitted a similar exemption request last year, which we also denied. While GB haddock is a healthy stock and we are supportive of efforts to increase utilization of GB haddock quota, we are concerned that allowing the use of gillnets smaller than the 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) minimum mesh size may have an impact on GB cod, given that this stock is overfished and overfishing is occurring. Although some studies have shown increased selectivity of haddock with smaller mesh gillnets, selectivity curves suggest that smaller mesh gillnets will catch more smaller-sized cod and other co-occurring species than larger mesh nets. Industry and researchers have conducted studies to further investigate the selectivity of different gillnet mesh sizes, but these studies relied on limited data, did not directly investigate fishing in the proposed areas, and have yet to be peer reviewed. In addition, changes in the location and intensity of gillnet fishing may have impacts on protected resources, particularly North Atlantic
Several sectors have proposed an operations plan provision to limit and more accurately document a vessel's behavior when fishing in an area they define as the inshore portion of the GOM BSA, or the area to the west of 70° 15' W. long. As in fishing years 2019 and 2020, we are approving this provision, but a sector may elect to remove this provision in the final version of its operations plan, and it is not a requirement under NMFS regulations.
Under this provision, a vessel that is carrying an observer or ASM would remain free to fish in all areas, including the inshore GOM area, without restriction. If a vessel is not carrying an observer or ASM and fishes any part of its trip in the GOM west of 70° 15' W. long., the vessel would be prohibited from fishing outside of the GOM BSA. Also, if a vessel is not carrying an observer or ASM and fishes any part of its trip outside the GOM BSA, this provision would prohibit a vessel from fishing west of 70° 15' W. long. within the GOM BSA. The approved provision includes a requirement that a vessel declare whether it intends to fish in the inshore GOM area through the trip start hail using its VMS unit prior to departure. We provide sector managers with the ability to monitor this provision through the Sector Information Management Module, a website where we also provide roster, trip, discard, and observer information to sector managers. A sector vessel may use a federally-funded NEFOP observer or ASM on these trips because we believe this option will not create bias in discard estimates, as fishing behavior is expected to be consistent with the standard fishery requirements such as minimum gear and fish sizes as a result of exercising this option.
Several sectors have requested a provision to allow a vessel to haul another vessel's fish trap gear, similar to the current exemptions that allow a vessel to haul another vessel's gillnet gear or hook gear. These exemptions have generally been referred to as “community” gear exemptions. Regulations at § 648.84(a) require a vessel to mark all bottom-tending fixed gear, which includes fish trap gear used to target groundfish. This requirement helps protect against illegal hauling of gear by vessels that do not own the gear and are not authorized to tend it. To facilitate enforcement of § 648.84(a) and use of this exemption, we are requiring each vessel authorized to haul another's gillnet gear to tag that gear, similar to how this sector operations plan provision was implemented in fishing years 2014 through 2020. This allows one vessel to deploy the trap gear and another vessel to haul the trap gear, provided both vessels tag the gear prior to deployment. This requirement is included in the sector's operations plan to provide the opportunity for the sector to monitor the use of this provision and facilitate the Office of Law Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard's enforcement of the marking requirement. We do not expect this provision to increase effort or the amount of fish trap gear used. Instead, it would provide an efficiency and would allow a vessel to retrieve gear as a convenience.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This action proposes to approve measures submitted in 16 Northeast multispecies sector operations plans, including sector regulatory exemptions intended to provide additional operational flexibility, at-sea and electronic monitoring programs, and the allocation of ACE to sectors. Sectors must have an approved operations plan in order to operate, receive ACE allocations, and authorize member vessels to fish. Sectors operate under a series of “universal” regulatory exemptions that exempt sector vessels from some of the effort controls in the fishery management plan, as well as sector-specific exemptions, which grant additional operational flexibilities to sector vessels. Universal exemptions include exemptions from DAS, seasonal closures, and trip limits. These exemptions allow sector participants to maximize per-trip yields, more fully harvest healthy stocks, and time the market.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires Federal agencies to consider disproportionality and profitability to determine the significance of regulatory impacts. For RFA purposes only, NMFS established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts less than $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The determination of whether the entity is large or small is based on the average annual revenue for the most recent 3 years for which data are available (from 2017 through 2019).
To participate in the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program, vessels must possess a limited access multispecies permit and operate as part of a sector. Entities holding one or more limited access multispecies permits are potentially impacted by this action. According to the commercial database, there were 627 entities that had at least one valid limited access permit during 2019, the last year for which affiliation information is available. Of these entities, 100 did not have revenues. There were 527 entities that reported revenues during 2019. Of these, 6 were classified as large and 521 were classified as small businesses.
The proposed approval of fishing years 2021 and 2022 operations plans and the allocation of fishing year 2021 ACE to groundfish sectors will have a positive impact on all 627 entities, as it will allow them to participate in the sector groundfish fishery rather than fish under the common pool effort control regulations. Common pool regulations include limits on DAS, trip limits, gear restrictions, size limits, and closures intended to control overall
This proposed rule does not contain a change to a collection of information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The existing collection of information requirements would continue to apply under the following OMB Control Number(s): 0648-0605; Northeast Multispecies Amendment 16.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(k) * * *
(14) * * *
(x) Leave port to begin a trip before an at-sea monitor has arrived and boarded the vessel if assigned to carry an at-sea monitor for that trip, or without an operational electronic monitoring system installed on board, as specified in § 648.87(b)(5)(iii)(A).
(xii) Fail to comply with the electronic monitoring system requirements as specified in § 684.87(b)(5)(iii)(A)(
(xiii) Fail to comply with the vessel monitoring plan requirements as specified in § 648.87(b)(5)(iii)(A)(
The revisions and additions to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(B)
(
(4)
(i) * * *
(D) A statement, signed under penalty of perjury, from each owner, board member, and officer describing any criminal convictions, Federal contracts they have had, and the performance rating they received on the contract, and previous decertification action while working as an observer, at-sea monitor, or video reviewer; or as an observer, at-sea, or electronic monitoring service provider;
(E) A description of any prior experience the applicant may have in placing individuals or monitoring equipment in remote field and/or marine work environments including, but not limited to, recruiting, hiring, deployment, equipment installation and maintenance, and personnel administration;
(F) A description of the applicant's ability to carry out the responsibilities and duties of a sector monitoring service provider and the arrangements to be used, including whether the service provider is able to offer at-sea or electronic monitoring services;
(G) Evidence of adequate insurance (copies of which shall be provided to the vessel owner, operator, or vessel manager, when requested) to cover injury, liability, and accidental death to cover at-sea monitors (including during training) and electronic monitoring staff who provide electronic monitoring services to vessels; vessel owner; and service provider. NMFS will determine the adequate level of insurance and notify potential service providers;
(H) Proof of benefits and personnel services provided in accordance with the terms of each monitor's or electronic monitoring staff's contract or employment status;
(I) Proof that the service provider's at-sea monitors or video reviewers have passed an adequate training course sponsored by the service providers to the extent not funded by NMFS that is consistent with the curriculum used in the current yearly NEFOP training course, unless otherwise specified by NMFS;
(J) An Emergency Action Plan describing the provider's response to an emergency with any at-sea monitor or electronic monitoring staff, including, but not limited to, personal injury, death, harassment, or intimidation; and
(ii)
(A) * * *
(
(B) The service provider must ensure that at-sea monitors or video reviewers remain available to NMFS, including NMFS Office for Law Enforcement, for debriefing for at least 2 weeks following any monitored trip/offload or electronic monitoring trip report submission. Electronic monitoring service providers must ensure that electronic monitoring data and reports are retained for a minimum of 12 months after catch data is finalized for the fishing year. NMFS will notify providers of the catch data finalization date each year. The service provider must provide NMFS access to electronic monitoring data upon request;
(C) The service provider must report possible at-sea or electronic monitoring staff harassment; discrimination; concerns about vessel safety or marine casualty; injury; and any information, allegations, or reports regarding at-sea or electronic monitoring staff conflict of interest or breach of the standards of behavior to NMFS and/or the sector manager, as specified by NMFS;
(D) The service provider must submit to NMFS, if requested, a copy of each signed and valid contract (including all attachments, appendices, addendums, and exhibits incorporated into the contract) between the service provider and those entities requiring services (
(G) With the exception of a service provider offering reporting, dockside, at-sea, or electronic monitoring services to participants of another fishery managed under Federal regulations, a service provider's owner(s), board member(s), and officers must not have a direct or indirect interest in a fishery managed under Federal regulations, including, but not limited to, fishing vessels, dealers, shipping companies, sectors, sector managers, advocacy groups, or research institutions and may not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gratuity, gift, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from anyone who conducts fishing or fishing-related activities that are regulated by NMFS, or who has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the official duties of service providers;
(H) * * *
(
(
(iv)
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(B) * * *
(
(iv) * * *
(B)
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (Sunset Reviews) of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) order(s) and suspended investigation(s) listed below. The International Trade Commission (the ITC) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of
Applicable April 1, 2021.
Commerce official identified in the
Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s) and suspended investigation(s):
As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Commerce's regulations, Commerce's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on Commerce's website at the following address:
In accordance with section 782(b) of the Act, any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), Commerce will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative
Domestic interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, Commerce's regulations provide that
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice; extension of application window.
On March 4, 2021, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published a notice seeking expressions of interest in an appointment to the Board of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet Authority). The notice established a deadline of April 5, 2021, for the transmittal of expressions of interest. This notice extends the period for submission of expressions of interest until April 15, 2021.
Expressions of interest must be postmarked or electronically transmitted on or before April 15, 2021.
Applicants should submit expressions of interest to: Michael Dame, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Public Safety Communications, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, by email to
Michael Dame, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Public Safety Communications, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4078, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1181; email:
On March 4, 2021, NTIA published a notice seeking expressions of interest in an appointment to the FirstNet Authority Board.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 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. The USPTO invites comment on this information collection renewal, which helps the USPTO assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Further information can be obtained by:
•
•
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 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. The USPTO invites comment on this information collection renewal, which helps the USPTO assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for this information
Further information can be obtained by:
•
•
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of availability.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is announcing the availability of a document titled, “Proposed Guidance for Industry and Test Method Developers: CPSC Staff Evaluation of Alternative Test Methods and Integrated Testing Approaches and Data Generated from Such Methods to Support FHSA Labeling Requirements.” The Commission requests comments on the proposed guidance.
Submit comments by June 14, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2021-0006, by any of the following methods:
John Gordon, Toxicologist, Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301-987-2025; email:
The Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261-1275, requires that hazardous substances bear certain cautionary statements on their labels. Manufacturers may perform toxicological tests to determine whether such products require cautionary labeling addressing the hazard. Although animals are still used in toxicological testing, most governmental agencies support reduced use of animals in testing, by promoting the acceptance of data from alternative test methods.
In 1997, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and 13 federal agencies (including CPSC) joined to form the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM). ICCVAM sponsors scientific review of non-animal tests (known as New Approach Methodologies or NAMs) that may reduce, refine, or replace animal tests in evaluating potential hazards. Reviews from ICCVAM and other federal agencies can provide a basis for regulatory agencies, such as CPSC, to consider non-animal testing alternatives for use in regulatory decision making. In the past, CPSC staff relied upon ICCVAM's validation of new alternative testing methods, as reliable test methods to determine compliance with the labeling requirements of the FHSA. However, ICCVAM no longer formally validates test methods.
In 2012, CPSC issued a policy on non-animal or alternative testing methods to support labeling requirements under the FHSA, as codified under 16 CFR 1500.232 (Animal Testing Policy). CPSC's website lists current CPSC-accepted alternative test methods and their conditions of use.
The Commission reaffirms its policy to find alternatives to traditional animal testing that replace animals, reduce the number of animals tested, and decrease the pain and suffering in animals associated with testing household products. As such, the Commission strongly encourages all agency stakeholders to submit for evaluation by CPSC staff any scientifically validated alternative test methods that do not require animal testing for determining compliance with the labeling requirements under the FHSA.
Because ICCVAM no longer formally validates test methods, to assist stakeholders, including the public, manufacturers, test method developers, and test laboratories, in determining what test methods are deemed reliable for determining compliance with the labeling requirements under the FHSA,
The proposed guidance is not a rule and does not establish legal requirements. The proposed guidance is intended to inform stakeholders about what information CPSC staff uses to evaluate NAMs or IATAs for FHSA labeling determinations. The proposed guidance also informs stakeholders of CPSC staff's process for evaluating that information. Depending on the complexity of specific NAMs or IATAs, the information discussed in the guidance may or may not apply; and in some instances, staff may need additional information not specifically described in the guidance document to make an evaluation. The proposed guidance is available at:
The Commission invites comments on the “Proposed Guidance for Industry and Test Method Developers: CPSC Staff Evaluation of Alternative Test Methods and Integrated Testing Approaches and Data Generated from Such Methods to Support FHSA Labeling Requirements.” The CPSC will consider all timely comments before finalizing the guidance. Comments should be submitted by June 14, 2021. Information on how to submit comments can be found in the
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (operating as AmeriCorps) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Application Package for AmeriCorps VISTA Application and Reporting Forms for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling AmeriCorps, Kelly Daly at 202-606-6849 or by email to
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose 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.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Request for public comments.
On behalf of the U.S. Government, DoD is contemplating a renewal of Reciprocal Defense Procurement Memorandum of Understanding with the Ministry of Defense of Japan. DoD is requesting industry feedback regarding its experience in public defense
Comments must be received by April 30, 2021.
Submit comments to Defense Pricing and Contracting, Attn: Mr. Gregory D. Snyder, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B938, Washington, DC 20301-3060; or by email to
Mr. Gregory D. Snyder, telephone 703-614-0719.
DoD has concluded a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Memorandum of Understanding (RDP MOU) with each of the 27 “qualifying” countries at the level of the Secretary of Defense and his counterpart. The purpose of an RDP MOU is to promote rationalization, standardization, and interoperability of conventional defense equipment with allies and other friendly governments. These RDP MOUs provide a framework for ongoing communication regarding market access and procurement matters that enhance effective defense cooperation.
RDP MOUs generally include language by which the Parties agree that their defense procurements will be conducted in accordance with certain implementing procedures. These procedures relate to—
• Publication of notices of proposed purchases;
• The content and availability of solicitations for proposed purchases;
• Notification to each unsuccessful offeror;
• Feedback, upon request, to unsuccessful offerors concerning the reasons they were not allowed to participate in a procurement or were not awarded a contract; and
• Provision for the hearing and review of complaints arising in connection with any phase of the procurement process to ensure that, to the extent possible, complaints are equitably and expeditiously resolved.
Based on the RDP MOU, each country affords the other country certain benefits on a reciprocal basis consistent with national laws and regulations. The benefits that the United States accords to the products of qualifying countries include the following:
• Offers of qualifying country end products are evaluated without applying the price differentials otherwise required by the Buy American statute and the Balance of Payments Program.
• The chemical warfare protection clothing restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 2533a and the specialty metals restriction in 10 U.S.C. 2533b(a)(1) do not apply to products manufactured in a qualifying country.
• Customs, taxes, and duties are waived for qualifying country end products and components of defense procurements.
If DoD (for the U.S. Government) renews an RDP MOU with the Ministry of Defense of Japan, then Japan would continue to be listed as one of the “qualifying countries” in the definition of “qualifying country” at Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 225.003, and offers of products of Japan, or that contain components from Japan, would continue to be afforded the benefits available to all qualifying countries. This also means that U.S. products would continue to be exempt from any analogous “Buy Japan” laws or policies applicable to procurements by the Japan Ministry of Defense or Armed Forces.
While DoD is evaluating Japan's laws and regulations in this area, DoD would benefit from U.S. industry's experience in participating in Japan's public defense procurements. DoD is, therefore, asking U.S. firms that have participated or attempted to participate in procurements by or on behalf of Japan's Ministry of Defense or Armed Forces to let us know if the procurements were conducted with transparency, integrity, fairness, and due process in accordance with published procedures, and if not, the nature of the problems encountered.
DoD is also interested in comments relating to the degree of reciprocity that exists between the United States and Japan when it comes to the openness of defense procurements to offers of products from the other country.
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 30, 2021.
DoD estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as follows:
This collection of information is implemented in the DFARS through the provision at 252.204-7019, Notice of NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirement, and the clause at 252.204-7020, NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements. This information collection covers the following requirements:
• DFARS provision 252.204-7019, Notice of NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirement, is prescribed for use in all solicitations, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, except for solicitations solely for the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items. Per the provision, if an offeror is required to have implemented NIST SP 800-171 per DFARS clause 252.204-7012, then the offeror shall have a current assessment posted in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) for each covered contractor information system that is relevant to the offer, contract, task order, or delivery order in order to be considered for award. If the offeror does not have summary level scores of a current NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment (
• DFARS clause 252.204-7020, NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements, is prescribed for use in in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, except for solicitations and contracts solely for the acquisition of COTS items. The clause requires the contractor to provide the Government access to its facilities, systems, and personnel in order to conduct a Medium or High Assessment, if necessary. For Basic Assessments, the contractor may submit summary level scores for posting to SPRS. Medium Assessments are assumed to be conducted by DoD Components, primarily by Program Management Office cybersecurity personnel, in coordination with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Defense Industrial Base Cybersecurity Assessment Center (DIBCAC), as part of a separately scheduled visit (
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:
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 30, 2021.
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:
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by June 1, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0479, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Heather Kitchens, 571-372-6104.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement, and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection requirement for use through July 21, 2021. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for an additional three years.
DoD will consider all comments received by June 1, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0255, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Barbara J. Trujillo, 571-372-6102.
DFARS 236.570(a) prescribes use of the clause at DFARS 252.236-7000, Modification Proposals—Price Breakdown, in all fixed-price construction solicitations and contracts. The clause requires the contractor to submit a price breakdown with any proposal for a contract modification.
DFARS 236.570(b) prescribes use of the following clauses in fixed-price construction contracts and solicitations as applicable:
(1) The clause at DFARS 252.236-7002, Obstruction of Navigable Waterways, requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer of obstructions in navigable waterways.
(2) The clause at DFARS 252.236-7003, Payment for Mobilization and Preparatory Work, requires the contractor to provide supporting documentation when submitting requests for payment for mobilization and preparatory work.
(3) The clause at DFARS 252.236-7004, Payment for Mobilization and Demobilization, permits the contracting officer to require the contractor to furnish cost data justifying the percentage of the cost split between mobilization and demobilization, if the contracting officer believes that the proposed percentages do not bear a reasonable relation to the cost of the work.
DFARS 236.570(c) prescribes use of the following provisions in solicitations for military construction contracts that are funded with military construction appropriations and are estimated to exceed $1,000,000:
(1) The provision at DFARS 252.236-7010, Overseas Military Construction—Preference for United States Firms, when contract performance will be in a United States outlying area in the Pacific or in a country bordering the Arabian Gulf, requires an offeror to specify whether or not it is a United States firm.
(2) The provision at DFARS 252.236-7012, Military Construction on Kwajalein Atoll—Evaluation Preference, when contract performance will be on Kwajalein Atoll, requires an offeror to specify whether it is a United States firm, or on Kwajalein Atoll, status as a Marshallese firm.
Defense Human Resources Activity, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of revised per diem rates in non-foreign areas outside the Continental U.S.
Defense Human Resources Activity publishes this Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 316. Bulletin Number 316 lists current per diem rates prescribed for reimbursement of subsistence expenses while on official Government travel to Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 lodging rate review resulted in lodging rate changes in certain locations.
The updated rates take effect April 1, 2021.
Ms. Shelly L. Greendyk, 571-372-1249.
This document notifies the public of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee for travel to non-foreign areas outside the continental United States. The FY 2021 lodging rate review for Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands resulted in lodging rate changes in certain locations. Bulletin Number 316 is published in the
If you believe the lodging, meal or incidental allowance rate for a locality listed in the following table is insufficient, you may request a rate review for that location. For more information about how to request a review, please see the Defense Travel Management Office's Per Diem Rate Review Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page at
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 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 June 1, 2021.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Thomas Wei, 646-428-3892.
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.
Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 30, 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 Elyse Jones, 202-453-5627.
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.
Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), 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 June 1, 2021.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Nicoisa Jones, (202) 453-6695.
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.
Take notice that on May 19, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a staff-led technical conference via webcast as part of a reassessment of the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) requirements. A supplemental notice will be issued prior to the conference with further details regarding the agenda, meeting registration information, and electronic log-in information.
The purpose of this technical conference is to provide a forum for Commission staff, filers, and data users to discuss potential changes to the current EQR data fields. This technical conference is the second in a series of conferences related to a reassessment of the EQR requirements.
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about the EQR technical conference, please contact Jeff Sanders of the Commission's Office of Enforcement at (202) 502-6455, or send an email to
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA 210(m)(3) filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on March 12, 2021, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, TX 77002-2700, filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA),
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Alexander Kass, Legal Counsel, ANR Pipeline Company, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas, by phone at (832)-320-5226, or by email at
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before April 16, 2021.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-78-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number CP21-78-000.
To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-78-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below . Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP21-78-000.
To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email at: 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas or at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
a. Project Names and Numbers: Lockwood Hydroelectric Project No. 2574; Hydro-Kennebec Hydroelectric Project No. 2611; Shawmut Hydroelectric Project No. 2322; and Weston Hydroelectric Project No. 2325.
b. Project licensees: Merimil Limited Partnership; Hydro-Kennebec, LLC; Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC.
c. Date and Time of Teleconference: Thursday, April 8, 2021 from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
d.
e. Purpose of Meeting: Commission staff will hold a teleconference with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Brookfield Renewable Partners (Brookfield) to discuss issues related to options for moving forward with Endangered Species Act consultation raised by NMFS in recent filings made with the Commission regarding the Lockwood, Hydro-Kennebec, Shawmut, and Weston Projects.
f. Members of the public and intervenors in the referenced proceedings may attend the teleconference; however, participation will be limited to representatives of the NMFS and Brookfield, and the Commission's representatives.
g. Please call or email Marybeth Gay at (202) 502-6125 or
Southeastern Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of proposed rates, public forum, and opportunities for public review and comment.
Southeastern Power Administration (Southeastern) proposes to revise existing schedules of rates and charges applicable to the sale of power from the Jim Woodruff Project, effective October 1, 2021, through September 30, 2026. Interested persons may review the rates and supporting studies and submit written comments. Southeastern will consider all comments received in this process.
Written comments are due on or before June 29, 2021. A public information and comment forum will be held by Southeastern Power Administration, virtually, on May 11, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. EDT. Persons desiring to speak at the forum should notify Southeastern at least seven (7) days before the scheduled forum date so that a list of forum participants can be prepared. Notifications should be submitted by Email to
The Tuesday, May 11, 2021, Microsoft Teams Meeting URL information is as follows:
Samuel W. Loggins, Assistant Administrator, Finance and Marketing, Southeastern Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, 1166 Athens Tech Road, Elberton, GA 30635-6711, (706) 213-3805; Email:
The additional costs are due to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Operation & Maintenance expense increases and Southeastern marketing expense increases.
Rate schedule JW-2-F, available to Duke Energy Florida (DEF), would continue the current rate of 100 percent of DEF's fuel cost.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces the availability of and solicits public comment on an Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA is planning to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled “Pesticide Data-Call-In Program” and identified by EPA ICR No. 2288.04 and OMB Control No. 2070-0174, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2021. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific
Comments must be submitted on or before June 1, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0693, 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
Carolyn Siu, Mission Support Division, Office of Program Support, (P75601), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 347-1249; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates 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.
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,
In evaluating a pesticide registration application, EPA assesses a wide variety of potential human health and environmental effects associated with the use of the product. Applicants, or potential registrants, must generate or provide the scientific data necessary to address concerns pertaining to the identity, composition, potential adverse effects, and environmental fate of each pesticide. The data allow EPA to evaluate whether a pesticide has the potential to cause harmful effects on certain non-target organisms and endangered species (including humans, wildlife, and plants) and on surface water or ground water.
Through a rigorous scientific and public process, EPA specifies the kinds of data and information necessary to make regulatory judgments about the risks and benefits of pesticide products under FIFRA sections 3, 4 and 5, as well as the data and information needed to determine the safety of pesticide chemical residues under FFDCA section 408. The regulations in 40 CFR part 158 describe the minimum data and information EPA typically requires to support an application for pesticide registration or amendment; support the reregistration of a pesticide product; support the maintenance of a pesticide registration by means of the data call-in process (
As described in 40 CFR 158.30, however, FIFRA provides EPA with flexibility to require, or not require, data and information for the purposes of making regulatory judgments for individual pesticide products, thereby allowing for the data required to be modified on an individual basis to fully characterize the use and properties, characteristics, or effects of specific pesticide products under review. The Agency encourages each applicant to consult with EPA to discuss the data requirements particular to its product prior to and during the registration process. In addition, the Agency cautions applicants that the data routinely required by the regulations may not be sufficient to permit EPA to evaluate the potential of the product to cause unreasonable adverse effects on man or the environment. EPA may, therefore, require the submission of additional data or information beyond that specified in the regulations if such data or information are needed to evaluate a pesticide product as required by FIFRA and FFDCA.
EPA uses the DCIs issued under this ICR to acquire the data that has been deemed necessary for the Agency's statutorily mandated review of a pesticide's registration, which require it to assess whether the continued registration of an existing pesticide causes an unreasonable adverse effect on human health or the environment and whether the Agency will pursue appropriate regulatory measures. The key program areas are described in more detail in this ICR, along with the Agency's estimates of the information collection burden and costs associated with issuing DCIs under those key program areas.
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is an increase of 465,948 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR that was approved by OMB. This increase reflects EPA's correction of a clerical error associated with the approved hours entered into the tracking system (causing a burden of 58,206 hours to be approved rather than the 625,669 burden hours requested in the submitted ICR), and an increase in the estimated DCIs issued over the next three years from 663 to 802 that will require data generation thus raising the average of DCIs issued annually from 221 to 267. Other factors include the addition of high-test costs for certain DCIs, and an increase in non-government wage rates. This is increase qualifies as an adjustment.
In addition, OMB has requested that EPA move towards using the 18-question format for ICR Supporting Statements used by other federal agencies and departments and is based on the submission instructions established by OMB in 1995, replacing the alternate format developed by EPA and OMB prior to 1995. EPA intends to update this Supporting Statement during the comment period to reflect the 18-question format, and has included the questions in an attachment to this Supporting Statement. In doing so, the Agency does not expect the change in format to result in substantive changes to the information collection activities or related estimated burden and costs.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program Annual Measures Reporting” and identified by EPA ICR No. 2415.04 and OMB Control No. 2070-0188, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2021. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before June 1, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0692, by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit
Carolyn Siu, Mission Support Division, Office of Program Support, (7101M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 347-1249; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates 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.
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,
PESP member includes pesticide end-users and organizations which focus on training, educating, and/or influencing pesticide users. To become a PESP member, an organization submits an application and a five-year strategy outlining how environmental and human health risk reduction goals will be achieved through IPM implementation and/or education. The program encourages PESP members to track progress towards IPM goals such as: reductions in unnecessary use of pesticides, cost reductions, and knowledge shared about IPM methodologies. Entities participating in PESP also benefit from technical assistance, and through incentives for achievements at different levels.
There is an increase of 2,428 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects EPA's updating of burden estimates for this collection based upon historical information on the number of PESP members. Based on revised estimates, the number of IPM Promoters has decreased, while the number of IPM users has increased, and the number of National IPM users has decreased since the last ICR renewal. Although the estimated burden per response has not changed for any category, the shift in membership types has resulted in a net increase in the overall burden.
In addition, OMB has requested that EPA move towards using the 18-question format for ICR Supporting Statements used by other federal agencies and departments and is based on the submission instructions established by OMB in 1995, replacing the alternate format developed by EPA and OMB prior to 1995. EPA intends to update this Supporting Statement during the comment period to reflect the 18-question format, and has included the questions in an attachment to this Supporting Statement. In doing so, the Agency does not expect the change in format to result in substantive changes to the information collection activities or related estimated burden and costs.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
7 U.S.C. 136
Farm Credit Administration Board, Farm Credit Administration.
Notice, regular meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the forthcoming regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board.
The regular meeting of the Board will be held April 8, 2021, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board may conclude its business.
To observe the open portion of the virtual meeting, go to
Dale Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board (703) 883-4009. TTY is (703) 883-4056.
Instructions for attending the virtual meeting: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public, and parts will be closed. If you wish to observe the open portion, at least 24 hours before the meeting, go to
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 1, 2021. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Specifically, FCC 20-54 contains the new or modified information collection requirements listed below, applicable to applicants seeking experimental licenses for satellite operations under part 5 of the Commission's rules, as well as to license grantees under part 97 submitting notifications to the Commission prior to launch of a satellite amateur station:
(1) Existing disclosure requirements have been revised to include specific metrics in several areas, including: Probability that the space stations will become a source of debris by collision with small debris and meteoroids that would cause loss of control and prevent disposal; probability of collision between any non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) space station and other large objects; and casualty risk associated with any individual spacecraft that will be disposed by atmospheric re-entry.
(2) Where relevant, the disclosures must include the following: Use of separate deployment devices, distinct from the space station launch vehicle, that may become a source of orbital debris; potential release of liquids that will persist in droplet form; and any planned proximity operations and debris generation that will or may result from the proposed operations, including any planned release of debris, the risk of accidental explosions, the risk of accidental collision, and measures taken to mitigate those risks.
(3) The existing disclosure requirement to analyze potential collision risk associated with space station(s) orbits has been modified to specify that the disclosure identify characteristics of the space station(s)' orbits that may present a collision risk, including any planned and/or operational space stations in those orbits, and indicate what steps, if any, have been taken to coordinate with the other spacecraft or system, or what other measures the operator plans to use to avoid collision.
(4) For NGSO space stations that will transit through the orbits used by any inhabitable spacecraft, including the International Space Station, the disclosure must include the design and operational strategies, if any, that will be used to minimize the risk of collision and avoid posing any operational constraints to the inhabitable spacecraft.
(5) The disclosure must include a certification that upon receipt of a space situational awareness conjunction warning, the operator will review and
(6) For NGSO space stations the disclosure must describe the extent of satellite maneuverability.
(7) The disclosure must address trackability of the space station(s). For NGSO space stations the disclosure must also include: (a) How the operator plans to identify the space station(s) following deployment and whether the space station tracking will be active or passive; (b) whether, prior to deployment the space station(s) will be registered with the 18th Space Control Squadron or successor entity; and (c) the extent to which the space station operator plans to share information regarding initial deployment, ephemeris, and/or planned maneuvers with the 18th Space Control Squadron or successor entity, other entities that engage in space situational awareness or space traffic management functions, and/or other operators.
(8) For NGSO space stations, additional disclosures must be provided regarding spacecraft disposal, including, for some space stations, a demonstration that the probability of success of the chosen disposal method is 0.9 or greater for any individual space station, and for multi-satellite systems, a demonstration including additional information regarding efforts to achieve a higher probability of success.
These information collection requirements are contained in 47 CFR 5.64 and 47 CFR 97.207.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before April 30, 2021.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
The information collected through carriers' tariffs is used by the Commission and state commissions to determine whether services offered are just and reasonable, as the Act requires. The tariffs and any supporting documentation are examined in order to determine if the services are offered in a just and reasonable manner.
Commission staff will use the information to assign licenses for interoperability and General Use channels, as well as renewal of State licenses. The information will also be used to determine whether prospective licensees operate in compliance with the Commission's rules. Without such information, the Commission could not accommodate State interoperability or regional planning requirements or provide for the efficient use of State frequencies. This information collection includes rules to govern the operation and licensing of 700 MHz band systems to ensure that licensees continue to fulfill their statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Such information will continue to be used to verify that applicants are legally and technically qualified to hold licenses, and to determine compliance with Commission rules.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
Ohio has scheduled special elections on August 3, 2021, and November 2, 2021, to fill the U.S. House of Representatives seat in the 11th Congressional District vacated by Representative Marcia L. Fudge. Committees required to file reports in connection with the Special Primary Election on August 3, 2021, shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report. Committees required to file reports in connection with both the Special Primary and Special General Election on November 2, 2021, shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary, a 12-day Pre-General, and a 30-day Post-General Report.
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.
All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Ohio Special Primary and Special General Elections shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report on July 22, 2021; a 12-day Pre-General Report on October 21, 2021; and a 30-day Post-General Report on December 2, 2021. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).
Political committees not filing monthly in 2021 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Ohio Special Primary or Special General Elections by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Ohio Special Primary or Special General Elections will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information for the Ohio special elections may be found
Principal campaign committees, party committees and leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $19,300 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b), 110.17(e)(2), (f).
On behalf of the Commission.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
New Mexico has scheduled a Special General Election on June 1, 2021, to fill the U.S. House of Representatives seat in the 1st Congressional District vacated by
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.
All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the New Mexico Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on May 20, 2021, and a 30-day Post-General Report on July 1, 2021. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Political committees not filing monthly in 2021 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the New Mexico Special General by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the New Mexico Special General will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information for the New Mexico special election may be found on the FEC website at
Principal campaign committees, party committees and leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the New Mexico Special General must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $19,300 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b), 110.17(e)(2), (f).
On behalf of the Commission.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
The companies listed in this notice have 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 29, 2021.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
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 29, 2021.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Application for Employment with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FR 28; OMB No. 7100-0181).
The revisions are applicable as of April 30, 2021.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-
The FR 28 application form may be completed online through the Taleo submission website, or in hardcopy by PDF. If the applicant completes the online version of the application through Taleo, they will initially be asked to upload a resume and to complete the first four sections of the application; it is not until the applicant is asked to interview that they will be instructed to complete the remaining sections of the application. If completing the PDF version of the FR 28 application form, the applicant will fill out all seven sections in their entirety but may not be asked to supply a resume.
The FR 28s is a voluntary form that comprises four sections seeking the following information: Name and gender, for which applicants are asked to check either the box that corresponds to their gender or the box for “I do not wish to disclose”; the position for which the applicant is applying; ethnicity self-identification, for which applicants are asked to choose from among Hispanic or Latino, Not Hispanic or Latino, or “I do not wish to disclose”; and race self-identification, for which applicants are asked to choose one or more from among American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Black or African-American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White or to select “I do not wish to disclose.” The Board uses this information to comply with federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) recordkeeping and reporting requirements and other legal requirements, as well as an input to its self-analysis of hiring practices. Information collected on the FR 28s has no bearing on the determination of an applicant's job-related qualifications and completion of the self-identification form is voluntary.
The FR 28i survey comprises three sections in which research assistant (RA) candidates are (i) asked to rate their level of interest in categories of economics and related research areas; (ii) provided the option to expand upon certain qualifying characteristics indicated as important to the Board; and (iii) asked to rate their experience with various software packages and statistical programming languages. The FR 28i helps to streamline the RA recruitment process.
The FR 28c conflicts of interest form comprises four sections and collects information from external applicants after they have been selected for an interview at the Board regarding certain financial interests held by the applicant, their spouse, and their minor child(ren); immediate family members who are involved in related businesses (
The obligation to respond to the FR 28 form, the FR 28c form, and to the questions in Sections I and III of the FR 28i survey is required to obtain the benefit of Board employment. The obligation to respond to the questions in Section II of the FR 28i survey and the obligation to disclose gender, race, and ethnicity on the FR 28s form is voluntary.
Certain information provided on the FR 28 and the FR 28i forms may be kept confidential under exemption (b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which protects information in “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)). For example, the release of information such as an applicant's home address and phone number, as well as personal information regarding the applicant's references, would likely constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and, accordingly, would be kept confidential. However, the release of information such as the educational and professional qualifications of successful applicants would not likely constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and, therefore, would not be treated as confidential under the FOIA.
Generally, information provided on the FR 28c form may be kept confidential pursuant to exemption 6 of the FOIA. In addition, financial information collected on the form (such as confidential details about the shares an applicant, their spouse, or their minor child owns in a bank) may be withheld under exemption 4 of the FOIA, which protects “financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged and confidential” (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Information provided on the 28s would be kept confidential under exemption 6 of the FOIA to the extent release of such information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and is not otherwise required under federal law.
The information collected on the FR 28, the FR 28c, the FR 28i, and the FR 28s forms will be maintained in a “system of records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(5), and a Privacy Act statement will accompany each of the four forms that respectively comprise this information collection. The Board may disclose the information collected on these forms, including confidential information withheld from the public under a FOIA exemption, to third parties in accordance with the Privacy Act's “routine use” disclosure provisions, 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(7) and (b)(3), which permit the disclosure of a record for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the record was collected. The routine uses that would permit the disclosure of the information collected on each form are listed in the specific system of records notices (SORNs) that apply to each form. For the FR 28, the FR 28c, the FR 28i, and the FR 28s, the information collected will be stored in the SORN entitled “BGFRS-1, FRB—Recruiting and Placement Records,” located here:
Specifically, the BGFRS-1 and the BGFRS-41 SORNs provide that the information may be disclosed outside the Board in accordance with general routine uses A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J (see “General Routine Uses of Board Systems of Records available at
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 30, 2021.
A.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Regulation BB (FR BB; OMB No. 7100-0197).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
Most of the recordkeeping, reporting, and disclosure requirements of Regulation BB are mandatory. However, there are several limited parts of the
Most of the information collected under Regulation BB is not considered confidential. However, if a respondent elects to submit a strategic plan pursuant to 12 CFR 228.27, the respondent may submit additional information to the Board relating to the strategic plan on a confidential basis, so long as the goals in the plan are sufficiently specific to enable the public and the Board to judge the merits of the plan. The Board will determine whether the additional information is entitled to confidential treatment on a case-by-case basis.
To the extent a respondent submits information contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, or on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions, the respondent may request confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 8 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Agency order.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the extension of an Order under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act to temporarily halt residential evictions to prevent the further spread of COVID-19.
This Order is effective April 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021.
Tiffany Brown, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-10, Atlanta, GA 30329. Phone: 404-639-7000. Email:
This Order further extends the original temporary eviction moratorium Order published on September 4, 2020, as initially extended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and further extended by the Order published on January 29, 2021 set to expire on March 31, 2021, with modifications through June 30, 2021. Because of COVID-19, household crowding and transmission, and the increased risk of individuals sheltering in close quarters in congregate settings such as homeless shelters, which may be unable to provide adequate social distancing as populations increase, extending the temporary halt on evictions, subject to further extension, modification, or rescission, is appropriate.
The Order is extended through June 30, 2021 based on current and projected epidemiological context of SARS-CoV-2 transmission throughout the United States. Although daily incidence of COVID-19 decreased and plateaued between January and March 25, 2021, widespread transmission continues at high levels, making the Order still necessary, especially given that previous plateaus have led to secondary and tertiary phases of acceleration.
A copy of the Order is provided below. A copy of the signed Order and the Declaration can be found at:
Subject to the limitations under “Applicability,” a landlord, owner of a residential property, or other person
“
“
“
(1) The individual has used best efforts to obtain all available government assistance for rent or housing;
(2) The individual either (i) earned no more than $99,000 (or $198,000 if filing jointly) in Calendar Year 2020, or expects to earn no more than $99,000 in annual income for Calendar Year 2021 (or no more than $198,000 if filing a joint tax return),
(3) The individual is unable to pay the full rent or make a full housing payment due to substantial loss of household income, loss of compensable hours of work or wages, a lay-off, or extraordinary
(4) The individual is using best efforts to make timely partial payments that are as close to the full payment as the individual's circumstances may permit, taking into account other nondiscretionary expenses; and
(5) Eviction would likely render the individual homeless—or force the individual to move into and live in close quarters in a new congregate or shared living setting—because the individual has no other available housing options.
“
“
“
“
This Order shall be interpreted and implemented in a manner as to achieve the following objectives:
• Mitigating the spread of COVID-19 within crowded, congregate or shared living settings, or through unsheltered homelessness;
• Mitigating the further spread of COVID-19 from one state or territory into any other state or territory;
• Mitigating the further spread of COVID-19 by temporarily suspending the eviction of covered persons from residential property for nonpayment of rent; and
• Supporting response efforts to COVID-19 at the federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal levels.
There is currently a pandemic of a respiratory disease (“COVID-19”) caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-COV-2) that has now spread globally, including cases reported in all fifty states within the United States, plus the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. As of March 25, 2021, there have been almost 125 million cases of COVID-19 globally, resulting in over 2,700,000 deaths.
The virus that causes COVID-19 spreads very easily and sustainably between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet), mainly through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks. Individuals without symptoms can also spread the virus.
COVID-19 presents a historic threat to public health, and COVID-19 cases have been detected in every county in the continental United States.
Two-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccination became available in December 2020 and as of March 27, 2021 over 50 million people in the United States (more than 15% of the population) have been fully immunized.
In recent months, new variants of SARS-CoV-2 have also emerged globally.
To respond to this public health threat, Federal, state, and local governments have taken unprecedented or exceedingly rare actions, including border closures, restrictions on travel, stay-at-home orders, mask requirements, and eviction moratoria. In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered unprecedented restrictions on interstate and foreign travel. For example, many states require travelers arriving from other states to obtain negative test results and/or quarantine upon arrival.
In the context of a pandemic, eviction moratoria—like quarantine, isolation, and social distancing—can be an effective public health measure utilized to prevent the spread of communicable disease. Eviction moratoria facilitate self-isolation by people who become ill or who are at risk for severe illness from COVID-19 due to an underlying medical condition. They also allow state and local authorities to more easily implement, as needed, stay-at-home and social distancing directives to mitigate the community spread of COVID-19.
Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (Pub. L. 116-136) to aid individuals and businesses adversely affected by COVID-19 in March 2020. Section 4024 of the CARES Act provided a 120-day moratorium on eviction filings as well as other protections for tenants in certain rental properties with federal assistance or federally related financing. These protections helped alleviate the public health consequences of tenant displacement during the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act eviction moratorium expired on July 24, 2020. The protections in the CARES Act supplemented temporary eviction moratoria and rent freezes implemented by governors and other local officials using emergency powers. Researchers estimated that this temporary federal moratorium provided relief to a material portion of the nation's roughly 43 million renters.
The federal moratorium provided by the CARES Act, however, did not reach all renters. Many renters who fell outside the scope of the Federal moratorium were instead protected under state and local moratoria. In August, it was estimated that as many as 30-40 million people in America could be at risk of eviction.
On September 4, 2020, the CDC Director issued an Order temporarily halting evictions in the United States for the reasons described therein. That Order was set to expire on December 31, 2020, subject to further extension, modification, or rescission. Section 502 of Title V, Division N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 extended the Order until January 31, 2021. With the extension of the Order, Congress also provided $25 billion for emergency rental assistance for the payment of rent and rental arrears. Congress later provided an additional $21.55 billion in emergency rental assistance when it passed the American Rescue Plan.
On January 29, 2021, following an assessment of the ongoing pandemic, the CDC Director renewed the Order until March 31, 2021. This Order further extends and modifies the prior Eviction Moratoria until June 30, 2021, for the reasons described herein, subject to revision based on the changing public health landscape. To the extent any provision of this Order conflicts with prior Orders, this Order is controlling.
Researchers estimate that, in 2020, Federal, state, and local eviction moratoria led to over one million fewer evictions than the previous year.
Evicted renters must move, which leads to multiple outcomes that increase the risk of COVID-19 spread. Specifically, many evicted renters move into close quarters in shared housing or other congregate settings. According to the Census Bureau American Housing Survey, 32% of renters reported that they would move in with friends or family members upon eviction, which would introduce new household members and potentially increase household crowding. Studies show that COVID-19 transmission occurs readily within households. The secondary attack rate in households has been estimated to be 17%, and household contacts are estimated to be 6 times more likely to become infected by an index case of COVID-19 than other close contacts. A study of pregnant women in New York City showed that women in large households (greater number of residents per household) were three times as likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than those in smaller households, and those in neighborhoods with greater household crowding (>1 resident per room) were twice as likely to test positive.
Throughout the United States, counties with the highest proportion of crowded households have experienced COVID-19 mortality rates 2.6 times those of counties with the lowest proportion of crowded households.
Shared housing is not limited to friends and family. It includes a broad range of settings, including transitional housing and domestic violence and abuse shelters. Special considerations exist for such housing because of the challenges of maintaining social distance. Residents often gather closely or use shared equipment, such as kitchen appliances, laundry facilities, stairwells, and elevators. Residents may have unique needs, such as disabilities, chronic health conditions, cognitive decline, or limited access to technology, and thus may find it more difficult to take actions to protect themselves from COVID-19. CDC recommends that shelters provide new residents with a clean mask, keep them isolated from others, screen for symptoms at entry, or arrange for medical evaluations as needed depending on symptoms. Accordingly, an influx of new residents at facilities that offer support services could potentially overwhelm staff and, if recommendations are not followed, lead to exposures.
Preliminary modeling projections and observational data from COVID-19 incidence comparisons across states that implemented and lifted eviction moratoria indicate that evictions substantially contribute to COVID-19 transmission. In mathematical models where eviction led exclusively to sharing housing with friends or family, lifting eviction moratoria led to a 40% increased risk of contracting COVID-19 among people who were evicted and those with whom they shared housing after eviction (pre-peer review). Compared to a scenario where no evictions occurred, the models also predicted a 5-50% increased risk of infection, even for those who did not share housing, as a result of increased overall transmission. The authors estimated that anywhere from 1,000 to 100,000 excess cases per million population could be attributable to evictions depending on the eviction and infection rates.
An analysis of observational data from state-based eviction moratoria in the 43 states and the District of Columbia showed significant increases in COVID-19 incidence and mortality approximately 2-3 months after eviction moratoria were lifted (pre-peer review). Specifically, the authors compared the COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates in states that lifted their moratoria with the rates in states that maintained their moratoria. In these models, the authors controlled for time-varying indicators of each state's test count as well as major public-health interventions including lifting stay-at-home orders, school closures, and mask mandates. After adjusting for these other changes, they found that the incidence of COVID-19 in states that lifted their moratoria was 1.6 times that of states that did not at 10 weeks post-lifting (95% CI 1.0, 2.3), a ratio that grew to 2.1 at ≥16 weeks (CI 1.1, 3.9). Similarly, they found that mortality in states that lifted their moratoria was 1.6 times that of states that did not at 7 weeks post-lifting (CI 1.2, 2.3), a ratio that grew to 5.4 at ≥16 weeks (CI 3.1, 9.3). The authors estimated that, nationally, over 433,000 cases of COVID-19 and over 10,000 deaths could be attributed to lifting state moratoria.
Although data are limited, available evidence suggests evictions lead to interstate spread of COVID-19 in two ways. First, an eviction may lead the evicted members of a household to move across state lines. Of the 35 million Americans who move each year, 15% move to a new state. Second, even if a particular eviction, standing alone, would not always result in interstate displacement, the mass evictions that would occur in the absence of this Order would inevitably increase the interstate spread of COVID-19. This Order cannot effectively mitigate interstate transmission of COVID-19 without covering intrastate evictions, as the level of spread of SARS-CoV-2 resulting from these evictions can lead to SARS-CoV-2 transmission across state borders. Moreover, intrastate spread facilitates interstate spread in the context of communicable disease spread, given the nature of infectious disease. In the aggregate, the mass-scale evictions that will likely occur in the absence of this Order will inevitably increase interstate spread of COVID-19.
Evicted individuals without access to support or other assistance options may become homeless, including older adults or those with underlying medical conditions, who are more at risk for severe illness from COVID-19 than the general population. In Seattle-King County, 5-15% of people experiencing homelessness between 2018 and 2020 cited eviction as the primary reason for becoming homeless. Additionally, some individuals and families who are evicted may originally stay with family or friends, but subsequently seek homeless services. Among people who entered shelters throughout the United States in 2017, 27% were staying with family or friends beforehand.
People experiencing homelessness are at high risk for COVID-19. It may be more difficult for these persons to consistently access the necessary resources to adhere to public health recommendations to prevent COVID-19. For instance, it may not be possible to avoid certain congregate settings such as homeless shelters, or easily access facilities to engage in handwashing with soap and water.
Extensive outbreaks of COVID-19 have been identified in homeless shelters. In Seattle, Washington, a network of three related homeless shelters experienced an outbreak that led to 43 cases among residents and staff members. In Boston, Massachusetts, universal COVID-19 testing at a single shelter revealed 147 cases, representing 36% of shelter residents. COVID-19 testing in a single shelter in San Francisco led to the identification of 101 cases (67% of those tested). Data from 557 universal diagnostic testing events at homeless shelters in 21 states show an average of 6% positivity among shelter clients. Data comparing the incidence or severity of COVID-19 among people experiencing homelessness directly to the general population are limited. However, during the 15-day period of the outbreak in Boston, MA, researchers estimated a cumulative incidence of 46.3 cases of COVID-19 per 1000 persons experiencing homelessness, as compared to 1.9 cases per 1000 among Massachusetts adults (pre-print).
CDC guidance recommends increasing physical distance between beds in homeless shelters. To adhere to this guidance, shelters have limited the number of people served throughout the United States. In many places, considerably fewer beds are available to individuals who become homeless. Shelters that do not adhere to the guidance, and operate at ordinary or increased occupancy, are at greater risk for the types of outbreaks described above. The challenge of mitigating disease transmission in homeless shelters has been compounded because some organizations have chosen to stop or limit volunteer access and participation.
In the context of the current pandemic, large increases in evictions resulting in homelessness could have at least two potential negative consequences. One is if homeless shelters increase occupancy in ways that increase the exposure risk to COVID-19. The other is if homeless shelters limit new admissions, leading to increases in unsheltered homelessness, which is associated with significantly heightened risk of mortality generally. Neither consequence is in the interest of the public health.
Additionally, research suggests that the population of persons who would be evicted and those experiencing homelessness may be at risk of severe disease from COVID-19. Five studies have shown an association between eviction and hypertension, which has been associated with more severe outcomes from COVID-19. Also, people experiencing homelessness often have underlying conditions that increase their risk of severe outcomes of COVID-19. Among patients with COVID-19, homelessness has been associated with increased likelihood of hospitalization.
In short, evictions threaten to increase the spread of COVID-19 as they force people to move, often into close quarters in new shared housing settings with friends or family, or congregate settings such as homeless shelters. The ability of these settings to adhere to best practices, such as social distancing and other infection control measures, decreases as populations increase.
In addition to extending the effective period of the prior orders, this Order makes several modifications. A description of each modification follows:
CDC added a statement in the “Statement of Intent” section consistent with the clarification of the “Evict” and “Eviction” definitions. The statement now specifically clarifies that one intended purpose of this Order is to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 by temporarily suspending the eviction of covered persons from residential property for nonpayment of rent.
CDC modified the “Applicability” section to add the following points:
A signed declaration submitted under a previous order remains valid notwithstanding the issuance of this extended and modified order, and covered persons do not need to submit a new declaration under this Order. Evictions for nonpayment of rent initiated prior to September 4, 2020, but not yet completed are subject to this Order, but those that were completed before September 4, 2020, are not subject to the Order. While the Order does not prohibit evictions for engaging in criminal activity while on the leased premises, covered persons may not be evicted on the sole basis that they are alleged to have committed the crime of trespass (or similar state-law offense) where the underlying activity is a covered person remaining in a residential property despite nonpayment of rent. Individuals who are confirmed to have, who have been exposed to, or who might have COVID-19 and take reasonable precautions to not spread the disease should not be evicted on grounds that they pose a health or safety threat to other residents.
Even if a particular eviction, standing alone, would not always result in interstate displacement, the mass evictions that would occur in the absence of this Order would inevitably increase the interstate spread of COVID-19. Moreover, increases in intrastate spread further facilitate interstate spread in the context of communicable disease spread.
The “Background,” “Eviction and Risk of COVID-19 Infection” and “Eviction, Homelessness, and Risk of Severe Disease from COVID-19”
CDC added a new section titled “Declaration Forms” with the following points:
To qualify as a covered person eligible for the protections of this Order, a tenant, lessee, or resident of a residential property must provide a completed and signed copy of a declaration with the elements listed in the definition of “Covered Person” to their landlord, owner of the residential property where they live, or other person who has a right to have them evicted or removed.
Tenants, lessees, or residents of a residential property may use any written document in place of the Declaration Form if it includes the required information as in the Form, is signed, and includes a perjury statement.
Tenants, lessees, or residents of a residential property can use a form translated into other Languages.
In some circumstances, it may be appropriate for one member of the residence to provide an executed declaration on behalf of the other adult residents who are party to the lease, rental agreement, or housing contract.
CDC modified the “Findings and Action” section to, among other things, further explain that this Order is not a rule within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act and, to the extent a court finds that the Order qualifies as a rule, there is good cause to dispense with prior public notice and comment.
This Order does not apply in any state, local, territorial, or tribal area with a moratorium on residential evictions that provides the same or greater level of public-health protection than the requirements listed in this Order or to the extent its application is prohibited by federal court order. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 264(e), this Order does not preclude state, local, territorial, and tribal authorities from imposing additional requirements that provide greater public-health protection and are more restrictive than the requirements in this Order.
This Order is a temporary eviction moratorium to prevent the further spread of COVID-19. This Order does not relieve any individual of any obligation to pay rent, make a housing payment, or comply with any other obligation that the individual may have under a tenancy, lease, or similar contract. Nothing in this Order precludes the charging or collecting of fees, penalties, or interest as a result of the failure to pay rent or other housing payment on a timely basis, under the terms of any applicable contract. Nothing in this Order precludes evictions based on a tenant, lessee, or resident: (1) Engaging in criminal activity while on the premises; (2) threatening the health or safety of other residents;
A signed declaration submitted under a previous order remains valid notwithstanding the issuance of this extended and modified order, and covered persons do not need to submit a new declaration under this Order.
Any evictions for nonpayment of rent initiated prior to September 4, 2020, but not yet completed, are subject to this Order. Any tenant, lessee, or resident of a residential property who qualifies as a “Covered Person” and is still present in a rental unit is entitled to protections under this Order. Any eviction that was completed prior to September 4, 2020, is not subject to this Order.
Under this Order, covered persons may be evicted for engaging in criminal activity while on the premises. But covered persons may not be evicted on the sole basis that they are alleged to have committed the crime of trespass (or similar state-law offense) where the underlying activity is a covered person remaining in a residential property for nonpayment of rent. Permitting such evictions would result in substantially more evictions overall, thus increasing the risk of disease transmission as otherwise covered persons move into congregate settings or experience homelessness. This result would be contrary to the stated objectives of this Order, and therefore would diminish their effectiveness. Moreover, to the extent such criminal trespass laws are invoked to establish criminal activity solely based on a tenant, lessee, or resident of a residential property remaining in a residential property despite the nonpayment of rent, such invocation conflicts with this Order and is preempted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 264(e).
Individuals who are confirmed to have, who have been exposed to, or who might have COVID-19 and take reasonable precautions to not spread the disease may not be evicted on grounds that they may pose a health or safety threat to other residents.
The Order is extended through June 30, 2021, based on the current and projected epidemiological context of SARS-CoV-2 transmission throughout the United States. Although daily incidence of COVID-19 decreased and plateaued between January and March 25, 2021, widespread transmission continues at high levels, making the Order still necessary, especially given that previous plateaus have led to secondary and tertiary phases of acceleration. Furthermore, the number of deaths per day continues at levels comparable to or higher than when this Order was established in September 2020.
To qualify for the protections of this Order, a tenant, lessee, or resident of a residential property must provide a completed and signed copy of a declaration with the elements listed in the definition of “Covered person” to their landlord, owner of the residential property where they live, or other person who has a right to have them evicted or removed from where they live. To assist tenants and landlords, the CDC created a standardized declaration form that can be downloaded here:
Tenants, lessees, and residents of residential property are not obligated to use the CDC form. Any written document that an eligible tenant, lessee, or residents of residential property presents to their landlord will comply with this Order, as long as it contains the required elements of “Covered person” as described in this order. In addition, tenants, lessees, and residents
All declarations, regardless of form used, must be signed, and must include a statement that the tenant, lessee, or resident of a residential property understands that they could be liable for perjury for any false or misleading statements or omissions in the declaration. This Order does not preclude a landlord challenging the truthfulness of a tenant's, lessee's, or resident's declaration in court, as permitted under state or local law.
In certain circumstances, such as individuals filing a joint tax return, it may be appropriate for one member of the residence to provide an executed declaration on behalf of the other adult residents party to the lease, rental agreement, or housing contract. The declaration may be signed and transmitted either electronically or by hard copy.
For the reasons described herein, I am extending and modifying the September 4, 2020 Order, as extended by section 502 of Title V, Division N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 and further extended by the January 29, 2021 Order. I have determined that extending the temporary halt in evictions in this Order constitutes a reasonably necessary measure under 42 CFR 70.2 to prevent the further spread of COVID-19 throughout the United States. I have further determined that measures by states, localities, or territories that do not meet or exceed these minimum protections are insufficient to prevent the interstate spread of COVID-19.
Based on the convergence of COVID-19, household crowding and transmission, and the increased risk of individuals sheltering in close quarters in congregate settings such as homeless shelters, which may be unable to provide adequate social distancing as populations increase, I have determined that extending the temporary halt on evictions is appropriate.
Therefore, under 42 CFR 70.2, subject to the limitations under the “Applicability” section, the September 4, 2020 Order is hereby modified and extended through June 30, 2021.
Accordingly, a landlord, owner of a residential property, or other person with a legal right to pursue eviction or possessory action shall not evict any covered person from any residential property in any state or U.S. territory in which there are documented cases of COVID-19 that provides a level of public-health protections below the requirements listed in this Order.
This Order is not a rule within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) but rather an emergency action taken under the existing authority of 42 CFR 70.2. The purpose of section 70.2, which was promulgated through notice-and-comment rulemaking, is to enable CDC to take swift steps to prevent contagion without having to seek a second round of public comments and without a delay in effective date.
In the event that this Order qualifies as a rule under the APA, notice and comment and a delay in effective date are not required because there is good cause to dispense with prior public notice and comment and the opportunity to comment on this Order and the delay in effective date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Considering the public health emergency caused by COVID-19, it would be impracticable and contrary to the public health, and by extension the public interest, to delay the issuance and effective date of this Order.
In the September 4, 2020 Order, the previous CDC Director determined that good cause existed because the public health emergency caused by COVID-19 made it impracticable and contrary to the public health, and by extension the public interest, to delay the issuance and effective date of the Order. The previous Director also found that a delay in the effective date of the Order would permit the occurrence of evictions—potentially on a mass scale—that would have potentially significant consequences. For these reasons, the previous Director concluded that the delay in the effective date of the Order would defeat the purpose of the Order and endanger the public health and, therefore, determined that immediate action was necessary. As a result, the previous Director issued the Order without prior notice and comment and without a delay in the effective date. I made similar findings in the January 29, 2021 Order.
As noted above, although transmission levels have decreased since January, between February 25, 2021 and March 25, 2021, the daily incidence of COVID-19 remained comparable to the summer peak of transmission in July 2020. Daily incidence in the last 30 days has remained consistently higher than the daily incidence when the Order took effect in September 2020. Furthermore, 37% of counties in the United States are categorized as experiencing “high” transmission (over 100 cases per 100,000 people or greater than 10% test positivity) and an additional 30% of counties are categorized as experiencing “substantial” transmission (50-99.99 cases per 100,000 people or 8-9.99% test positivity). No counties are currently considered free of spread, and only 8% of counties are considered to have low transmission. Because of these reasons and because the current extension is set to expire on March 31, 2021, I hereby conclude that immediate action is again necessary without prior notice and comment and without a delay in the effective date.
The rapidly changing nature of the pandemic requires not only that CDC act swiftly, but also deftly to ensure that its actions are commensurate with the threat. This necessarily involves assessing evolving conditions that inform CDC's determinations.
Although the pandemic is dynamic and the situation evolves over time, the fundamental public health threat that existed on September 4, 2020, and January 29, 2021—the risk of large numbers of residential evictions contributing to the spread of COVID-19 throughout the United States—continues to exist. Without this Order, there is every reason to expect that evictions will increase. It is imperative that public health authorities act quickly to help ward off an unprecedented wave of evictions, which would threaten new spikes in SARS-CoV-2 transmission at a critical juncture in fight against COVID-19. Such mass evictions and the attendant public-health consequences would be very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay the issuance and effective date of the Order pending notice-and-comment rulemaking for the reasons described herein, and because of the ever-changing landscape of the pandemic and the uncertainty of whether Congress would grant another extension as it did in December 2020.
Similarly, if this Order qualifies as a rule under the APA, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that it would be an economically significant regulatory
If any provision of this Order, or the application of any provision to any persons, entities, or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of the provisions, or the application of such provisions to any persons, entities, or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid, shall remain valid and in effect.
This Order shall be enforced by federal authorities and cooperating state and local authorities through the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3559, 3571; 42 U.S.C. 243, 268, 271; and 42 CFR 70.18. However, this Order has no effect on the contractual obligations of renters to pay rent and shall not preclude charging or collecting fees, penalties, or interest as a result of the failure to pay rent or other housing payment on a timely basis, under the terms of any applicable contract.
Under 18 U.S.C. 3559, 3571; 42 U.S.C. 271; and 42 CFR 70.18, a person violating this Order may be subject to a fine of no more than $100,000 or one year in jail, or both, if the violation does not result in a death, or a fine of no more than $250,000 or one year in jail, or both if the violation results in a death, or as otherwise provided by law. An organization violating this Order may be subject to a fine of no more than $200,000 per event if the violation does not result in a death or $500,000 per event if the violation results in a death or as otherwise provided by law. The U.S. Department of Justice may initiate criminal proceedings as appropriate seeking imposition of these criminal penalties.
Under 42 U.S.C. 243, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is authorized to cooperate with and aid state and local authorities in the enforcement of their quarantine and other health regulations and to accept state and local assistance in the enforcement of federal quarantine rules and regulations, including in the enforcement of this Order.
While this Order to prevent eviction is effectuated to protect the public health, the states and units of local government are reminded that the Federal Government has deployed unprecedented resources to address the pandemic, including housing assistance.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Agriculture, and Treasury have informed CDC that unprecedented emergency resources have been appropriated through various Federal agencies that assist renters and landlords during the pandemic, including $46.55 billion to the Treasury through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 and the American Rescue Plan (ARP). Furthermore, in 2020 44 states and 310 local jurisdictions allocated about $3.9 billion toward emergency rental assistance, largely from funds appropriated to Treasury and HUD from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES).
Visit
HUD, USDA and Treasury grantees and partners play a critical role in prioritizing efforts to support this goal. As grantees decide how to deploy CDBG-CV and ESG-CV funds provided by the new funding from the CARES Act, Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, and ARP all communities should assess what resources have already been allocated to prevent evictions and homelessness through temporary rental assistance and homelessness prevention, particularly to the most vulnerable households.
HUD stands at the ready to support American communities take these steps to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and maintain economic prosperity. For program support, including technical assistance, please visit
This Order is effective on April 1, 2021, and will remain in effect through June 30, 2021, subject to revision based on the changing public health landscape.
The authority for this Order is Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264) and 42 CFR 70.2.
Pursuant to Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a), as amended and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the re-establishment of the Advisory Committee to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and by delegation, the Director, CDC, are authorized under Sections 301 and 311 of the Public Health Service Act, [42 U.S.C. Sections 241 and 243], as amended to: (1) Conduct, encourage, cooperate with, and assist other appropriate public authorities, scientific
For information, contact Tiffany J. Brown, JD, MPH, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mail Stop H21-10, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, telephone (404) 498-6655;
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by June 1, 2021.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
The national implementation of HCAHPS is designed to allow third-party CMS-approved survey vendors to administer HCAHPS using mail-only, telephone-only, mixed-mode (mail with telephone follow-up), or active IVR (interactive voice response). With respect to a telephone-only or mixed-mode survey, the CMS-approved survey vendors use electronic data collection or CATI systems. CATI is also used for telephone follow-up with mail survey non-respondents. With respect to IVR survey administration, the IVR technology gathers information from respondents by prompting respondents to answer questions by pushing the numbers on a touch-tone telephone. Patients selected for IVR mode are able to opt out of the interactive voice
2.
CMS regulations at 42 CFR 413.24(f)(4) require that each hospice submit an annual cost report to their contractor in a standard American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) electronic cost report (ECR) format. A hospice submits the ECR file to contractors using a compact disk (CD), flash drive, or the CMS approved Medicare Cost Report E-filing (MCREF) portal, [URL:
CMS requires the Form CMS-1984-14 to determine a hospice's reasonable costs incurred in furnishing medical services to Medicare beneficiaries. CMS uses the Form CMS-1984-14 for rate setting; payment refinement activities, including developing a market basket; Medicare Trust Fund projections; and program operations support. Additionally, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) uses the hospice cost report data to calculate Medicare margins (a measure of the relationship between Medicare's payments and providers' Medicare costs) and analyze data to formulate Medicare Program recommendations to Congress.
Office of Head Start, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Office Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is requesting a 3-year extension of the information collection requirements under the Head Start Program Performance Standards (OMB #0970-0148). There are no changes to the information collection.
Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by emailing
This information collection is entirely record keeping and does not contain any standardized instruments to provide flexibility for local programs. These records are intended to act as a tool for grantees and delegate agencies to be used in their day-to-day operations. For example, this includes the requirement that programs maintain a waiting list of eligible families. There are no changes to the record keeping requirements.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided $7 million for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to use for the Tribal HUD-VASH demonstration program. HUD-VASH is a collaborative program between HUD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that combines HUD housing vouchers with VA supportive services to help Veterans who are homeless and their families find and sustain permanent housing. The 2017 Appropriations Act also requires HUD to publish in the
This Notice does not provide information on the application process. Those seeking to review all of the NOFA's content and/or apply for funds may do so at
Hilary Atkin, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 4108, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone (202) 402-3427 (this is not a toll-free number).
The Tribal HUD-VA Supportive Housing (Tribal HUD-VASH) demonstration program was established under the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235, approved December 16, 2014) (2015 Appropriations Act), and provides grants to Indian Tribes and Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs) eligible to receive block grants under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA). Grantees use HUD funding towards rental assistance for Native American Veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, living on or near a reservation or other Indian areas.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31, approved May 5, 2017) (2017 Appropriations Act) provided HUD with $7 million for the Tribal HUD-VASH demonstration program. Congress directed HUD to use this funding to provide renewal grants to the original Indian Tribes and TDHEs that received funding under the demonstration program. After awarding renewal funding, Congress authorized HUD to use any remaining amounts appropriated to fund new grants.
On May 22, 2018, HUD published a Notice in the
In accordance with the 2017 Appropriations Act, HUD published a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) on January 15, 2021, announcing the availability of the remaining $3,234,432 in FY 2017 funding for new Tribal HUD-VASH grants and establishing the criteria HUD would use to award these new grants. For Tribal HUD-VASH funds, the 2017 Appropriations Act provides that “funds shall be awarded based on need, and administrative capacity established by the Secretary [of HUD] in a Notice published in the
Those seeking to review all of the NOFA's content, or those seeking to apply for Tribal HUD-VASH funds, may do so at
The review criteria and information on the review and selection process contained in Sections V.A. and V.B. in the “Tribal HUD-VASH Expansion” NOFA, published January 15, 2021, at
The factors for rating and ranking Tribal HUD-VASH applications and the points for each factor are explained below. A maximum of 100 points may be awarded under Rating Factors 1, 2, and 3. To be considered for funding, an application must receive a minimum of 20 points under Rating Factor 1 and 35 points under Rating Factor 3. Applicants that do not meet the minimum score for each of these rating factors are ineligible to receive an award through the competition. Eligible applicants must receive an overall total of at least 75 points to be considered for funding.
Applicants must demonstrate that they possess or can obtain the managerial and technical staff necessary to implement a Tribal HUD-VASH grant.
The applicant must address the following components in its workplan narrative. If the applicant does not currently have the managerial or technical staff, then the applicant must address how it will obtain staff to manage and/or other assistance (
1. A description of the knowledge and experience of key staff, including the program manager, that will implement the Tribal HUD-VASH program;
2. Discussion of relevant training or experience working with homeless and/or at risk of homelessness populations or Veterans;
3. Understanding of supportive housing and other evidence-based practices used by Tribal HUD-VASH;
4. Recent housing experience of key staff (within 5 years);
5. Any successful accomplishments related to working with the homeless, at risk of homelessness population, or Veterans. Successful accomplishments include producing measurable impact on the quality and/or quantity of housing affecting the tribal homeless community. Some indicators of success may include a description of key outcomes (
6. The extent to which the program manager's time commitments and other key program personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the program's objectives.
Applicants proposing the construction, acquisition, or rehabilitation of units to house Veterans assisted under the Tribal HUD-VASH program must also include the following components in its workplan narrative:
7. Qualifications and relevant experience of staff, contractors, consultants, and sub-grantees for the project; and
8. Applicant's own experience in implementing new housing construction, acquisition, or rehabilitation projects.
HUD will award points as follows:
The applicant thoroughly addresses all components outlined in this Subfactor. The applicant already has its own managerial and technical staff to implement a Tribal HUD-VASH grant.
The applicant does not currently have its own managerial or technical staff to implement a Tribal HUD-VASH grant. However, the applicant thoroughly addresses how it will obtain qualified staff and/or other assistance (
The applicant adequately addressed this Subfactor but was either missing one of the components outlined in this Subfactor or the applicant addressed all of the required components but lacked detail to warrant full points under this Subfactor.
The applicant adequately addressed this Subfactor but was missing 2-3 of the components outlined in this Subfactor.
The application did not include any of the information described above to receive points under this Subfactor or the applicant addressed this Subfactor but was missing 4 or more components.
The applicant must address the measures that have been taken, or that it will take to ensure that it will implement policies and procedures for managing the Tribal HUD-VASH program.
The applicant should explain how its policies and procedures address the following components:
1. How it will comply with program requirements and procedures to ensure that its key personnel have the information and tools they need to manage the program;
2. Steps for managing waiting lists;
3. Coordination efforts with VA and HUD staff;
4. Implementing program obligations (
5. Implementation of how supportive housing and other evidence-based practices will be integrated with Tribal HUD-VASH veterans.
Applicants proposing to construct, rehabilitate, or acquire units for eligible Veterans must also address the following component:
6. The steps it will take to oversee the proper implementation of the parties (
Applicants with existing Tribal HUD-VASH policies may submit their existing policies as supporting documentation under this Subfactor.
Resources about program requirements and procedures can be found online:
The applicant thoroughly addresses the measures that have been taken or that it will take to ensure that it will implement policies and procedures for managing the Tribal HUD-VASH program based on the Subfactor criteria described.
The applicant adequately addressed this Subfactor but was either missing one of the components outlined in this Subfactor or the applicant addressed all of the required components but lacked detail to warrant full points under this Subfactor.
The applicant adequately addressed this Subfactor but was missing 2-3 of the components outlined in this Subfactor.
The application did not include any of the information described above to receive points under this Subfactor or the applicant addressed this Subfactor but was missing 4 or more components.
For this Subfactor, HUD will evaluate the applicant's performance during the rating period of October 1, 2017, up to and including the application submission deadline. To receive maximum points, the applicant must not have had any Single Audit findings, HUD-ONAP monitoring findings (IHBG, Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG), and other programs monitored by ONAP) or findings pertaining to ONAP programs from either HUD's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and/or the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) at any time during the rating period. Applicants that have Single Audit findings pertaining to financial management, accounting, and internal controls for HUD-ONAP programs during the rating period will receive zero points in this Subfactor. Applicants should not submit workplan narrative information or supporting attachments for this Subfactor, as HUD will utilize its own records to verify this information.
The applicant did not have any Single Audit, HUD-ONAP monitoring, HUD-OIG, or GAO findings at any time during the rating period.
The applicant had outstanding HUD-ONAP monitoring, HUD-OIG, or GAO findings during the rating period but resolved those findings by the established target date(s) or revised target date.
The applicant had HUD-ONAP monitoring, HUD-OIG, or GAO findings during the rating period but were not yet due for resolution based on the established target date(s) or revised target date.
Applicants that currently receive HUD-ONAP grants under the IHBG formula program, FY18/FY19 IHBG Competitive Program, Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) program, COVID-19 Recovery Programs (IHBG-CARES and ICDBG-CARES), or Tribal HUD-VASH program must ensure the timely submission of the following required reports: Annual Performance Report (APR), Annual Status and Evaluation Report (ASER), and the Federal Financial Report (SF-425). Applicants who have never received a HUD-ONAP grant will be awarded 2 points under this Subfactor.
HUD will award maximum points to those who have submitted all reports by the submission deadlines (which includes any granted extensions) for all HUD-ONAP grants during the one-year period immediately preceding the date that this NOFA is published. Applicants should not submit workplan narrative information or supporting attachments for this Subfactor, as HUD will utilize its own records to verify this information.
The applicant submitted all required reports by the submission deadlines for all HUD-ONAP grants during the one-year period immediately preceding the date that this NOFA is published.
The applicant submitted some, but not all, required reports by the submission deadlines for HUD-ONAP grants during the one-year period immediately preceding the date that this NOFA is published.
The applicant has never received a HUD-ONAP grant.
The applicant did not submit any required reports by the submission deadlines for HUD-ONAP grants during the one-year period immediately preceding the date that this NOFA is published.
HUD will evaluate administrative capacity by considering how applicants have utilized current Tribal HUD-VASH or IHBG formula funds using one of the categories below. In awarding points, HUD will consider the amount of undisbursed funds remaining in the Line of Credit Control System (LOCCS) for each applicant.
HUD will evaluate existing Tribal HUD-VASH grantees using Category #1 below. For applicants that do not currently administer the Tribal HUD-VASH program, HUD will evaluate how these IHBG recipients (or if they are not an IHBG recipient, their IHBG formula recipient) have spent or invested IHBG formula funds using either Category #2 or Category #3 below. In awarding points, HUD will take into account the amount of unexpended IHBG formula funds remaining in LOCCS and its plans for spending undisbursed IHBG funds, or if approved for investments, the status of the invested funds and the applicant's plans to use these funds for affordable housing activities. In assessing an applicant's undisbursed funds, HUD will neither consider the IHBG formula funds awarded in FY 2020 nor the IHBG funds awarded under the Coronavirus, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act since Indian tribes and TDHEs would have recently been awarded this funding. Eligible applicants that have ever been allocated IHBG formula funds but neither accept those funds nor have a current IHBG formula recipient will automatically receive 3 points under Category #2 below.
HUD will review how an existing Tribal HUD-VASH grantee has utilized its FY15 and FY17 funds. HUD will compare the total undisbursed balance awarded from these fiscal years with the cumulative award amount as of the NOFA publication date. HUD will not include the Tribal HUD-VASH renewal grant funding awarded under Notice PIH-2019-18 and PIH-2020-10 in evaluating this Subfactor. Applicants should not submit workplan narrative information or supporting attachments for this Subfactor, as HUD will utilize its own records to verify this information.
The applicant's combined undisbursed balance in LOCCS is 0-15% of the Tribal HUD-VASH cumulative award amount it received in FY15 and FY17.
The applicant's combined undisbursed balance in LOCCS is between 16% and 30% of the Tribal HUD-VASH cumulative award amount it received in FY15 and FY17.
The applicant's combined undisbursed balance in LOCCS is between 31% and 45% of the Tribal HUD-VASH cumulative award amount it received in FY15 and FY17.
The applicant's combined undisbursed balance in LOCCS is between 46% and 60% of the Tribal HUD-VASH cumulative award amount it received in FY15 and FY17.
The applicant's combined undisbursed balance in LOCCS is between 61% and 75% of the Tribal HUD-VASH cumulative award amount it received in FY15 and FY17.
The applicant's combined undisbursed balance in LOCCS is more than 75% of the Tribal HUD-VASH cumulative award amount it received in FY15 and FY17.
For this Subfactor, applicants not approved to invest formula IHBG funds will be evaluated on the expenditure of IHBG formula funding received in the last three federal fiscal years (2018-2020) in comparison with the amount of undisbursed IHBG funds remaining in LOCCS on the date this NOFA is published.
A new applicant with an undisbursed balance that is more than 25% of IHBG formula cumulative amounts that it received for the last three federal fiscal years may qualify for full points under this Subfactor only if it includes a justification that is satisfactory to HUD demonstrating well-developed plans to accumulate IHBG funds to carry out a specific activity in the future. The justification must include supporting information on when and how the recipient intends to spend its undisbursed IHBG funds in the future to qualify for the full 6 points. This may include specific references to past
An applicant that has received approval for but not investing its IHBG formula funds must clearly state this in the workplan narrative in order to qualify for points under this Subfactor Option. Applicants should not submit LOCCS or formula funding data for this Subfactor, as HUD will utilize its records to verify.
Eligible applicants that have ever been allocated IHBG formula funds but neither accept those funds nor have a current IHBG formula recipient will automatically receive 3 points for this Subfactor.
The applicant's undisbursed amount in LOCCS is between 51% and 75% of IHBG formula cumulative amount for the 2018-2020 Federal fiscal years. The applicant did not provide a justification and supporting information satisfactory to HUD demonstrating well-developed plans to spend its undisbursed IHBG amounts.
The applicant's undisbursed amount in LOCCS is more than 75% of IHBG formula cumulative amount for the 2018-2020 Federal fiscal years. The applicant did not provide a justification and supporting information demonstrating a well-developed plan to spend its undisbursed IHBG amounts.
A new applicant approved for investing formula IHBG funds in accordance with section 204(b) of NAHASDA and 24 CFR 1000.58 must submit information about its investment balances and its plans to spend the invested IHBG funds on affordable housing activities.
The applicant submitted all of the following information addressing its invested IHBG funds: the amount of IHBG grant funds that it currently has invested, the investment securities and other obligations in which the funds are invested, and a well-developed plan for spending the invested IHBG funds on affordable housing activities.
The applicant did not submit one of the following information addressing its invested IHBG grant funds: the amount of IHBG grant funds that it currently has invested, the investment securities and other obligations in which the funds are invested, and a well-developed plan for spending the invested IHBG funds on affordable housing activities.
The applicant did not submit two of the following information addressing its invested IHBG grant funds: the amount of IHBG grant funds that it currently has invested, the investment securities and other obligations in which the funds are invested, and a well-developed plan for spending the invested IHBG funds on affordable housing activities.
The application failed to include any of the following: information detailing the amount of IHBG grant funds that it currently has invested, the investment securities and other obligations in which the funds are invested, and a well-developed plan for spending the invested IHBG funds on affordable housing activities.
As required by the 2017 Appropriations Act, HUD will consider need when reviewing applications received under this NOFA. For this rating factor, the applicant must address the following components in its workplan narrative:
1. Reasons why the applicant is interested in a Tribal HUD-VASH grant;
2. Discussion of the magnitude (estimated number) and severity of the applicant's homeless Veterans or Veterans at risk of homelessness population;
3. The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, housing, or opportunities have been identified and how it will be addressed;
4. Steps taken to identify or estimate the applicant's total homeless Veterans or Veterans at risk of homelessness population, including those that may be eligible for VA benefits; and
5. Identify the estimated number of the applicant's eligible homeless Veterans or Veterans at risk of homelessness population that could be served under the Tribal HUD-VASH program. Resources to determine Veteran eligibility for VA supportive services are available online:
6. Existing grantees (if applicable): In addition to components #1-5 above, existing grantees must include an explanation of why additional Tribal HUD-VASH funds are needed in order to continue addressing the needs of its eligible homeless or at risk of homelessness Veteran population.
HUD will award points as follows:
The applicant fully addressed all of the components outlined in this Subfactor.
The applicant was either missing one of the components outlined in this Subfactor or the need justification addressed all of the required components, but lacked detail to warrant full points under this Subfactor.
The applicant was missing more than one of the components outlined in this Subfactor.
The applicant did not address any of the components described above to receive points under this Subfactor.
Applicants must demonstrate need for the Tribal HUD-VASH program by providing supporting information verifying the presence of Veterans that are homeless or at risk of homelessness in their Indian area (the area where the Tribe or TDHE is authorized to carry out affordable housing activities). The supporting information must correlate with the identified needs discussed in Subfactor 2.1.
Examples of acceptable documentation may include, but are not limited to:
1. Point-in-Time counts;
2. Waiting lists with homeless Veterans or Veterans at risk of homelessness;
3. Number of overcrowded households with residents that are at risk of homelessness
4. A list of eligible Veterans from the Tribal Veteran's Representative;
5. Data from the local VA;
6. U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) data; and
7. Any supporting documentation demonstrating to HUD's satisfaction the presence of homeless Veterans or Veterans at risk of homelessness.
HUD will award points as follows:
The applicant provided supporting information that correlates with the identified needs discussed in Subfactor 2.1.
The applicant provided supporting information. However, not all of the information submitted correlates with the identified needs discussed in Subfactor 2.1.
The applicant did not provide supporting information, or the information submitted does not correlate with any of the identified needs discussed in Subfactor 2.1.
For this Subfactor, HUD will assess need based on severity of the applicant's identified homeless Veterans or Veterans at risk of homelessness population. Points will be awarded based on how the estimated number of identified homeless Veterans or Veterans at risk of homelessness compares to the number of rental housing units requested by the applicant. HUD will use information submitted for Subfactors 2.1, 2.2, and 3.1 for this Subfactor review.
The estimated number of identified homeless Veterans or Veterans at risk of homelessness is at least three times the number of rental housing units requested by the applicant.
The estimated number of identified homeless Veterans or Veterans at risk of homelessness is at least twice but less than three times the number of rental housing units requested by the applicant.
The estimated number of identified homeless Veterans or Veterans at risk of homelessness is at least equal to but less than twice the number of rental housing units requested by the applicant.
The estimated number of homeless Veterans or Veterans at risk of homelessness is less than the number of rental housing units requested by the applicant.
HUD will assess the applicant's administrative capacity to implement its proposed Tribal HUD-VASH program by reviewing its workplan narrative. In addition, the applicant must include a schedule of specific tasks in its Implementation Schedule.
The applicant must describe the program in detail and include the following components in its workplan narrative and Implementation Schedule:
An applicant proposing Project-Based Rental Assistance must also address the following in its workplan narrative:
6. The length of time the Tribal HUD-VASH assistance would not be used while waiting for the units to be completed (
7. The number of units and the type of structure to which the assistance units will be attached; and
8. The project ownership and evidence of site control. As stated in the Consolidated Notice, Project-Based Rental Assistance may be provided to privately owned housing with a contract with the owner of the housing, or a unit that is owned or operated by the tribe/TDHE.
HUD will award points as follows:
The workplan narrative and Implementation Schedule include all of the components outlined in this Subfactor, including components #5-8 if the applicant is proposing Project-Based Rental Assistance.
• The workplan narrative and Implementation Schedule are either missing one of the components outlined in this Subfactor, including components #5-8 if the applicant is proposing Project-Based Rental Assistance; or
• The plan addressed all of the required components but lacked detail to warrant full points under this Subfactor.
The applicant is requesting the majority of funds towards Project-Based Rental Assistance and workplan narrative and Implementation Schedule are missing more than one but less than five of the components outlined in this Subfactor.
The applicant is either requesting the majority of funds towards Project-Based Rental Assistance and the workplan narrative and Implementation Schedule are missing five or more of the
HUD recognizes that this additional Tribal HUD-VASH expansion funding provides an opportunity to address severe overcrowding and the lack of affordable housing in Indian Country. As such, HUD will award full points under this Subfactor to applicants that demonstrate the administrative capacity to increase their housing stock for eligible Veterans. Additionally, HUD will award points based on how the applicant addresses the availability of housing stock it would use to house eligible Veterans under the Tribal HUD-VASH program.
For this Subfactor, applicants will be rated under either Category #1 or Category #2 below, depending on the nature of the proposed project. Applicants that propose both Project-Based and Tenant-Based projects will be rated according to the project that constitutes the majority of the federal request amount listed on the SF-424 and detailed budget. Applicants that propose an equal amount of federal funds towards both Project-Based and Tenant-Based projects will be rated according to Category #1- Project-Based Rental Assistance, as this in keeping with HUD's priority to increase the number of new housing units available for eligible Veterans under the program.
For applicants that request the majority of federal funds for Project-Based Rental Assistance, maximum points will be awarded to those that have leveraged other funding sources to increase its housing stock for the use of eligible Veterans.
To qualify for full points, applicants proposing to increase its housing stock for eligible Veterans must identify the amount of leveraged funding sources that it has used or plans to use and provide firm commitment documentation supporting this amount.
A firm commitment refers to a letter of commitment, memorandum of understanding, or agreement to participate from an applicant's partner specifying that it agrees to perform and/or support an activity specified in the application. The firm commitment must demonstrate that the partner has the financial capacity to deliver the resources or skills necessary to implement the proposed activity, either in cash or through in-kind contributions, if HUD awards Tribal HUD-VASH funds. Federal sources are only allowed to be used as leveraging if permitted by a program's authorizing statute. Contributions that could be considered as leveraged resources for point award include, but are not limited to:
As indicated in Subfactor 3.1, applicants that propose to use existing housing stock to house Veterans will not be awarded the maximum points for this Subfactor, unless it is newly constructed or acquired for Veterans 12 months or less prior to the application deadline established in this NOFA.
The following table summarizes acceptable firm commitment documentation to provide as evidence of leveraged funds:
Grantees will be required to show evidence that leveraging resources were actually received and used for their intended purposes through quarterly reports (SF-425) as the project proceeds.
HUD recognizes that in some cases, the applicant cannot receive a firm commitment of non-tribal funds by the application deadline. In such cases, the applicant must include a statement from the contributing entity that describes why the firm commitment cannot be made at the current time. The statement must say that the tribe/organization and proposed project meets the eligibility criteria for receiving the leveraged funds. It must also include a date by which the funding decisions will be made. This date cannot be over six months from the anticipated date of grant approval by HUD. If the applicant does not provide HUD with evidence of the firm commitment from the original leverage source or an alternative source within six months of the date of grant approval, or if anticipated leverage is not provided, HUD will re-rate and re-rank the application with the updated leverage information. If the application is no longer fundable after re-rating and re-ranking the application, HUD will rescind the grant and recapture grant funds.
HUD will award points as follows:
The applicant provided firm commitment documentation for all sources of leveraging resources that it has used or plans to use for the construction or acquisition of housing specifically for Veterans
The applicant is proposing to leverage other funding sources for the rehabilitation of existing stock for the use of Veterans. The applicant provided firm commitment documentation for all sources of leveraging resources that it has used or plans to use for the rehabilitation project.
The applicant is not proposing to increase its housing stock specifically for the use of eligible Veterans. Rather, the applicant is proposing to use existing housing stock, without associated rehabilitation costs, and the stock is more than 12 months old from the application deadline established in this NOFA for its Tribal HUD-VASH program.
The applicant proposed to increase its housing stock for the use of eligible Veterans by leveraging other sources of funding but did not provide firm commitment documentation for all sources of leveraging resources.
Applicants requesting funding to provide Tenant-Based Rental Assistance must submit supporting documentation demonstrating the availability of rental units where eligible Veterans may be housed, if awarded a Tribal HUD-VASH grant.
Documentation for this Subfactor must include agreements or letters of partnerships with local landlords showing commitment to house eligible Veterans as identified in Subfactor 3.1-Implementation Plan and Implementation Schedule. Other forms of supporting documentation to receive points under this Subfactor include a rental market survey identifying the rental market available for Veterans, or other documentation satisfactory to HUD demonstrating the availability of housing for Veterans assisted under this program.
Applicants that propose to make their own housing stock available for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance must provide supporting documentation in the form of a tribal resolution or equivalent committing units it would offer eligible Veterans under the program. The resolution (or equivalent) must identify the type of housing stock (
Applicants that propose to use units (50% or higher) that have been constructed, acquired, or rehabbed 12 months or less prior to the application deadline of this NOFA will receive more points under this Subfactor versus applicants that propose to use older housing stock.
The applicant provided agreements or letters of partnerships with local landlords for all rental units where eligible Veterans may be housed, as identified in Subfactor 3.1- Implementation Plan and Implementation Schedule. The applicant is also proposing to offer its own housing stock as an option for eligible Veterans, provided a tribal resolution or equivalent identifying the type of housing stock, number of units, and the majority age of the units (50% or higher) is 12 months or less from the application deadline of this NOFA.
The applicant provided agreements or letters of partnerships with local landlords for all rental units where eligible Veterans may be housed, as identified in Subfactor 3.1-Implementation Plan and Implementation Schedule. The applicant is also proposing to offer its own housing stock as an option for eligible Veterans and provided a tribal resolution or equivalent identifying the type of housing stock and number of units. However, the majority age of the units (49% or less) is older than 12 months from the application deadline of this NOFA.
The applicant provided agreements or letters of partnerships with local landlords for all rental units where eligible Veterans may be housed, as identified in Subfactor 3.1-Implementation Plan and Implementation Schedule. The applicant is not proposing to offer its own housing stock as an option for eligible Veterans.
The applicant provided agreements or letters of partnerships with local landlords for some, but not all rental units. The applicant provided other supporting documentation for the remaining rental units where eligible Veterans may be housed, as identified in Subfactor 3.1-Implementation Plan and Implementation Schedule. The applicant is not proposing to offer its own housing stock as an option for eligible Veterans.
The applicant did not provide agreements or letters of partnerships with local landlords. Rather, the applicant provided other supporting documentation for all rental units where eligible Veterans may be housed, as identified in Subfactor 3.1-Implementation Plan and Implementation Schedule. The applicant is not proposing to offer its own housing stock as an option for eligible Veterans.
The applicant did not provide agreements or letters of partnerships with local landlords. Rather, the applicant provided other supporting documentation for some, but not all rental units where eligible Veterans may be housed, as identified in Subfactor
The applicant did not provide any supporting documentation for the rental units where eligible Veterans may be housed.
HUD will review the detailed budget (Unit of Assistance Table, estimated administrative fee usage, and if applicable, project costs for the development of new units) according to the following criteria:
1. Budget is thoroughly prepared, with all costs requested on the SF-424 accounted for and calculations shown by the applicant;
2. Budget figures are consistent throughout the application;
3. Costs are allowable, allocable, reasonable, and necessary for implementing the proposed Tribal HUD-VASH program; and
4. All budget calculations are mathematically correct.
Points will be awarded as follows:
The detailed budget fully satisfied all of the criteria outlined in this Subfactor.
The detailed budget adequately satisfied all but one of the criteria outlined in this Subfactor.
The detailed budget did not satisfy two criteria outlined in this Subfactor
The detailed budget was missing information and/or did not satisfy three or more criteria outlined in this Subfactor.
This Subfactor awards points based on how an applicant will take affirmative steps to coordinate with the VA Medical Center that serves its tribal area and its overall understanding of the VA's role in implementing the program.
The applicant must address the following components in its workplan narrative:
1. Identify which VA Medical Center or VA Healthcare System the applicant will partner with for the program;
2. Description of the VA's agreement to participate in Tribal HUD-VASH, commitment and capacity to provide timely case management services to support a Tribal HUD-VASH award, and how the VA intends to obtain the case manager (VA hire or contract);
3. Overview of how the applicant will incorporate the VA partnership into the applicant's Tribal-HUD-VASH program operations;
4. Description of how supportive housing evidence-based practices (
5. Applicant's understanding of case manager criteria, recruitment and selection, including any anticipated involvement of tribal entities and potential barriers to obtaining a case manager;
6. Joint VA and tribal efforts to identify and conduct outreach to eligible homeless and/or at risk of homelessness veterans; and
7. Applicant's plan for on-going communication with the VA.
(10 points)
The applicant thoroughly described its coordination efforts with the VA in its workplan narrative and demonstrates a full understanding of the VA's role in implementing the program. The applicant discussed all of the Subfactor components in detail.
The applicant adequately addressed this Subfactor but was either missing one of the components outlined in this Subfactor or the applicant addressed all of the required components but lacked detail to warrant full points under this Subfactor.
The applicant adequately addressed this Subfactor but was missing 2-3 of the components outlined in this Subfactor.
The applicant addressed this Subfactor but was missing 4 or more components outlined in this Subfactor.
The application did not include any of the information described above to receive points under this Subfactor.
The applicant is encouraged to involve other partners in developing and implementing the Tribal HUD-VASH program. For this Subfactor, the applicant must address the following components:
1. How the applicant has designed the project and plans to implement it in coordination with community members, tribal departments, the Indian Health Service (HIS) or tribal health system, Continuums of Care, Veterans groups, nonprofits, homelessness providers, or other agencies/organizations;
2. Description of actions taken or to be taken to work with partners to support its marketing and outreach efforts to homeless and/or at risk of homelessness Veterans; and
3. Planned efforts to promote employment opportunities for homeless and/or at risk of homelessness Veterans.
The applicant thoroughly described its coordination efforts with other partners in its workplan narrative and discussed all of this Subfactor's components in detail.
The applicant adequately addressed this Subfactor but was either missing one of the components outlined in this Subfactor or the applicant addressed all of the required components but lacked detail to warrant full points under this Subfactor.
The application did not include any of the information described above to receive points under this Subfactor.
The applicant must include outcomes and outputs it strives to achieve with the project and describe them in detail. Outputs are measured in the volume of work accomplished and must correlate with the nature of the Tribal HUD-VASH program activities proposed and discussed in Rating Factors 2 and 3 of the workplan narrative. They should be clear enough to allow HUD to monitor and assess the proposed project or program's progress if funded. An outcome is the impact achieved from the outputs of the proposed project or program. They should be quantifiable measures or indicators that identify the change in the community, people's lives, economic status, etc. Discussion and coordination with VA facility staff can help identify clear outputs and outcomes as part of the investigation/planning process.
Examples of outputs could include but are not limited to:
Examples of outcomes could include but are not limited to:
The applicant clearly described measurable outputs and outcomes for the Tribal HUD-VASH program activities proposed in the workplan.
The applicant included measurable outputs and outcomes for the Tribal HUD-VASH program activities proposed in the workplan but did not clearly describe them in detail.
The applicant included either measurable outputs or outcomes for Tribal HUD-VASH program activities proposed in the workplan, but not both.
The application did not contain the information described above to receive points under this Subfactor.
HUD encourages activities in support of the Secretary's FY20 Initiatives. HUD may award up to two (2) points for any of the 3 preferences (OZ, PZ or HBCU).
This program does not offer Opportunity Zone preference points.
This program does not offer HBCU preference points.
This program does not offer Promise Zone preference points.
In evaluating applications for funding, HUD will consider an applicant's past performance in managing funds. Items HUD will consider include, but are not limited to:
The ability to account for funds in compliance with applicable reporting and recordkeeping requirements;
Timely use of funds received from HUD;
Timely submission and quality of reports submitted to HUD;
Meeting program requirements;
Meeting performance targets as established in the grant agreement;
The applicant's organizational capacity, including staffing structures and capabilities;
Timely completion of activities and receipt and expenditure of promised matching or leveraged funds;
HUD may reduce scores as specified under V. A. Review Criteria. Whenever possible, HUD will obtain past performance information. If this review results in an adverse finding related to integrity or performance, HUD reserves the right to take any of the remedies provided in Section III. E Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Affecting Eligibility, “Pre-selection Review of Performance” document link above.
In evaluating risks posed by applicants, HUD may use a risk-based approach and may consider any items such as the following:
HUD will review each application from an eligible applicant and assign points in accordance with the selection factors described in this section.
ONAP will screen and accept applications if they meet all the criteria listed below:
HUD will review each application that passes the screening process to ensure that each applicant and each proposed project meets the eligibility and submission thresholds in the Eligibility Requirements and this NOFA.
HUD will evaluate applicants' past performance under Rating Factor 1-Capacity of the Applicant.
HUD will rate all eligible applications that meet the Threshold Requirements against the criteria in Rating Factors 1 through 3 and assign a rating score. The maximum total rating score for the three Rating Factors is 100 points. HUD will review and rate each application that meets the acceptance criteria and threshold requirements. Once all applications are rated, HUD will conduct a review to ensure consistency in the application rating.
To be considered for funding, the application must receive a minimum of 20 points under Rating Factor 1-
HUD will place eligible applications that meet the minimum rating score requirements in ranked order. Funds will be awarded in rank order based on the score received on the application submitted under this NOFA. Applicants within the fundable range of 75 or more points will be considered for funding in ranked order up to the amount requested, or a lesser amount if sufficient funds are not available. Meeting the minimum score of 75 points does not guarantee a funding award will be made. HUD also reserves the right to adjust funding to meet urgent policy priorities. HUD reserves the right to issue a supplemental or independent NOFA if necessary (
At its discretion, if HUD determines that there are not enough funds available to fully fund a project as proposed by a successful applicant, then HUD may contact the applicant to determine whether revisions can be made to the program budget, workplan narrative, and Implementation Schedule to reflect the actual award offer. If it is not possible to agree on a revised program budget, workplan narrative, and Implementation Schedule, then an award will not be made to that applicant. In such an instance, HUD may offer an award, in a rank order, to another applicant. HUD may also select additional applications for funding, in rank order, if additional funds become available. See also Adjustments to Funding information in section VI.A. below.
When rating results in a tied score and there is not enough money to fund all tied scored applications, HUD will use the following factors in the order listed to resolve the tie:
1. HUD will approve applications that can be fully funded over those that cannot be fully funded;
2. Applicants that receive the most points according to Subfactor 3.2, Availability of Housing Stock;
3. Applicants that propose to leverage other funding sources to increase its housing stock for the use of eligible Veterans; and
4. Applicants that score the highest cumulative points for Rating Factor 1-Capacity of the Applicant and Rating Factor 2-Need.
If, after publication of this NOFA, additional funds become available through additional appropriations or recaptured funds, HUD reserves the right to:
1. Award funding to additional applicants based on their score from this competition;
2. Use the additional funds to provide additional funding to an applicant awarded less than the original requested amount of funds to make the full award; and
3. Fund additional applicants that were eligible to receive an award but for which there were no funds available from the FY 2017 appropriations; and
4. Award funding to applicants that meet the funding errors category in section VI.A. below.
Judgments made within the provisions of this NOFA and all program statutory and regulatory requirements are not subject to claim of error. There is no appeal process. An applicant may however, bring arithmetic errors in application scoring to the attention of HUD within 30 days of being informed of its score.
Following the evaluation process, HUD will notify successful applicants of their selection for funding. HUD will also notify other applicants, whose applications were received by the deadline, but have not been chosen for awards. Notifications will be sent by email to the person listed as the Authorized Representative listed on the SF-424. HUD anticipates announcing awards under this NOFA approximately four to six months after the application due date.
42 U.S.C. 3535(d); Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235, approved December 16, 2014); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31, approved May 5, 2017).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation and survival of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
We must receive your written comments on or before April 30, 2021.
•
•
Colleen Henson, Regional Recovery Permit Coordinator, Ecological Services, (503) 231-6131 (phone);
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” includes such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, in addition to hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits. Accordingly, we invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. 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 request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
If we decide to issue a permit to an applicant listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. We issue these permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
Information about the applications for the permits listed in this notice is available online at
Tim MacDonald, by phone at 703-358-2185, via email at
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have issued permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species in response to permit applications that we received under the authority of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
After considering the information submitted with each permit application and the public comments received, we issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth in each permit. For each application for an endangered species, we found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
The permittees' original permit application materials, along with public comments we received during public comment periods for the applications, are available for review. To locate the application materials and received comments, go to
We issue this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with foreign species that are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is issued that allows such activities. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing permits for any activity otherwise prohibited by the ESA with respect to any endangered species.
We must receive comments by April 30, 2021.
•
•
For more information, see Public Comment Procedures under
Tim MacDonald, by phone at 703-358-2185, via email at
We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods in
When submitting comments, please specify the name of the applicant and the permit number at the beginning of your comment. Provide sufficient information to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.
You may view and comment on others' public comments at
If you submit a comment at
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite comments on the following applications.
The applicant requests renewal and amendment of permits to export, import, and re-import both live captive-born and wild specimens, biological samples, and salvaged material of black-footed ferret (
The applicant requests a permit to export biological samples derived from the whooping crane (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples derived from wild Central American river turtles (
The applicant requests a permit to import one female captive-born Amur leopard (
The applicant requests a permit to import a sport-hunted cape mountain zebra (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male scimitar-horned oryx (
The applicant requests a permit to import a sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
After the comment period closes, we will make decisions regarding permit issuance. If we issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We issue this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
We must receive your written comments on or before April 30, 2021.
•
•
Nathan Rathbun, 612-713-5343 (phone);
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies; Tribes; and the public to comment on the following applications:
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. 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 request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Moreover, all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
If we decide to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), are requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct an emergency review of a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 30, 2021.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Jeanette Hanna, Deputy Bureau Director of the Office of Indian Services,
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Jeanette Hanna by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BIA; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BIA enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BIA minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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.
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
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 30, 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
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 30, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 30, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
On July 7, 2017, a former Assistant Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Ester Mark, M.D., (hereinafter, Respondent) of Newport Beach, California. Administrative Law Judge Exhibit 1, (OSC) at 1. The OSC proposed to revoke her DEA Certificate of Registration (hereinafter, COR) No. BM5370123, and deny her pending application COR No. W15069021C pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4) for the reason that Respondent's “continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest.”
In response to the OSC, Respondent timely requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. ALJ-2. The hearing in this matter was held in Santa Ana, California, on January 23-24, 2018. On April 5, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Charles Wm. Dorman (hereinafter, ALJ) issued Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision (hereinafter, Recommended Decision or RD), and on May 9, 2018, the Respondent filed exceptions (hereinafter, Resp Exceptions) to the Recommended Decision. The Government did not file any exceptions to the Recommended Decision or a response to Respondent's exceptions. Having reviewed the entire record, I find the Respondent's Exceptions without merit and I adopt the ALJ's rulings, findings of fact, as modified, conclusions of law and recommended sanction with minor modifications, where noted herein.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. BM5370123 issued to Ester Mark, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby deny the pending application, control number W15069021C, for renewal or modification of this registration, as well as any other pending application by Ester Mark, M.D., for registration in Florida or California. This Order is effective April 30, 2021.
Respondent filed Exceptions to the RD on May 9, 2018. Exceptions “shall include a statement of supporting reasons for such exceptions, together with evidence of record (including specific and complete citations of the pages of the transcript and exhibits) and citations of the authorities relied upon.” 21 CFR 1316.66. For the most part, the Respondent's Exceptions not only fail to comply with this regulatory requirement, but also lack evidentiary support in the Administrative Record. I am addressing some of these Exceptions in the beginning and have included some throughout the record where relevant. Others are repetitive of Respondent's Post-Hearing Brief and were addressed by the ALJ in the adopted Recommended Decision herein.
The Respondent lists sixty-eight “Proposed Findings of Fact,” which fall in two categories: Proposed findings that mirror those made by the ALJ, and those that supplement the findings of fact made by the ALJ. As to the former, the Respondent, in essence, adopts the ALJ's findings of fact. Consequently, I decline to consider those proposed findings, if intended as exceptions. As to the latter, I reject the Respondent's proposed factual findings that differ from those made by the ALJ.
Lastly, the Respondent's proposed findings of fact omit many factual findings made by the ALJ. To the extent Respondent intended such omissions as exceptions to those factual findings, I reject those exceptions, having concluded that the Administrative Record supports the ALJ's factual findings, as modified by this Decision and Order.
The ALJ sustained the allegation that Respondent violated 21 CFR 1301.75(b). RD, at 33. Although the controlled substances observed in Respondent's office on two occasions were not stored in a securely locked, substantially constructed cabinet, as required by 21 CFR 1301.75(b), Respondent argues that her extra security measures demonstrate substantial compliance with this regulation. Resp Exceptions, at 13-17. She further argues that DEA has not established
Respondent contends that state and federal investigators “never told [her] or advised [her] to make sure [she] had an inventory readily available.”
Respondent also contends that she keeps dispensing records both in the log that she introduced and also in her patient files; however, she introduced no patient files to explain the discrepancies in her stock of controlled substances.
Regarding her prescribing practices, Respondent contends that the AMA Code of Ethics “does not forbid practitioners from treating themselves nor prescribing controlled substances. In general, physicians should not treat themselves or members of their own families, but it is acceptable in some circumstances.”
Respondent argues that all of the pill counts were inaccurate. Resp Exceptions, at 27. She states, “For example, the agents failed to recognize the different dosages of the same medication, which amounted in a larger amount of pills for the same medication (Temazepam 15 mg & 30 mg) in the first count compared to the second count.”
Finally, Respondent contends that the investigators counted more Apap Codeine in GE-14 than in GE-3, and that “[o]nly mistakes could logically account for an in increase in the same medication at the second count.” It is illogical to assume that only a mistake in the count could explain an overage. The record reflects other overages, so Respondent could have acquired additional controlled substances between the two searches.
The Respondent seeks to apply a five-year statute of limitations to this proceeding and cites 18 U.S.C. 3282, 19 U.S.C. 1621 and 28 U.S.C. 2462.
Respondent contends that she “clearly accepted responsibility and demonstrated remedial measures when she stopped ordering from E-Compounding pharmacies, storing controlled substance, prescribing controlled substances to family members, and self-prescribing, as well as when she closed her practice to work as a medical director for another practice without prescribing controlled substances and improving her recordkeeping to meet the proper requirements of federal and state laws . . . .” Resp Exceptions, at 2. Respondent presented no evidence establishing these remedial measures on the record and did not testify regarding the allegations. Furthermore, even in making these written statements, Respondent has not accepted responsibility for her actions. Even if I fully considered her post-hearing, off-the-record statement that she “accept[s] full responsibility for being less than accurate in [her] recordkeeping duties during the time [she] was dispensing to patients,” her recordkeeping violations were not limited to dispensing and she makes no attempt at taking responsibility for her other violations of law. Furthermore, she passes blame on DEA for not telling her how to comply with recordkeeping requirements,
The issue before the Administrator is whether the record as a whole
The decision below is based on my consideration of the entire Administrative Record, including all of the testimony, admitted exhibits, and the oral and written arguments of counsel. I adopt the ALJ's Recommended Decision with noted modifications.
1. On March 13, 2014, DEA investigators served an Administrative Inspection Warrant (“AIW”) at Respondent's then-registered address: 22391 Sunbrook, Mission Viejo, California 92692. Then on June 13, 2014, DEA investigators, in conjunction with investigators from the California Medical Board, (“Medical Board”)
2. In association with the March 13, 2014 AIW, investigators attempted to conduct a physical inventory of the controlled substances located at Respondent's registered location. The investigators were not able to locate an initial inventory or a biennial inventory. The only records Respondent was able to provide were invoices from May 23, 2013, through March 13, 2014. Therefore, Respondent did not maintain complete and accurate records, including receiving records (such as DEA 222 Forms), dispensing logs, or the required inventories, in violation of state and federal law. In addition, at the time of the execution of the search warrant on June 13, 2014, Respondent did not maintain any of these required records. ALJ-1, at 2, para. 4, 5.
3. There were differences in the inventories of the controlled substances found in Respondent's office on March 13, 2014, and June 13, 2014. Specifically, the following items were missing without any record of their dispensation: 25 Alprazolam 1 mg, 30 count bottles; 10 Clonazepam 1 mg, 30 count bottles; 3 Diethylpropion HCI 25 mg, 28 count bottles; 3 Hydrocodone 10/325 mg, 30 count bottles; 2 Hydrocodone/IBU 7.5/200 mg, 30 count bottles; 64 Phentermine 37.5 mg, 30 count bottles; 3 Temazepam 30 mg, 30 count bottles; 12 Zolpidem 10 mg, 30 count bottles; and 10 vials of various anabolic steroid and testosterone-related products. Respondent was unable to account for the discrepancies through the production of required dispensing logs. ALJ-1, at 3, para. 6.
4. During the search on June 13, 2014, investigators found prescription bottles in Respondent's possession bearing the names of at least five other individuals. The bottles were located on her office desk, in violation of the California Health and Safety Code § 11350, and 21 CFR 1306.04. Specifically, the following controlled substances issued to other individuals were discovered: Alprazolam 2 mg (90 dosage units) issued to L.F.; Testosterone cypionate (1 bottle 2500 mg/10 mL) issued to B.S.; Testosterone cypionate (1 bottle 1000 mg/10 mL) issued to B.S.; Testosterone cypionate (1 vial 200 mg) issued to B.S.; Testosterone cypionate (3 bottles 2500 mg/10 mL) issued to D.V.; Xanax 2 mg (15 dosage units) issued to J.W.; Testosterone cypionate (1 vial 200 mg/10 mL) issued to J.W.; and Xanax 2 mg (15 dosage units) issued to D.D. ALJ-1, at 3, para. 7.
5. Between February 16, 2010, and July 13, 2015, Respondent unlawfully issued over 75 prescriptions for controlled substances that were for other than a legitimate medical purpose or outside the usual course of professional practice. Specifically, Respondent illegally prescribed controlled substances to herself and to her current husband, S.P., as set forth below:
a. Between February 16, 2010, and November 29, 2012, Respondent unlawfully issued at least 40 prescriptions to herself for controlled substances “for office use” in violation of the California Health and Safety Code § 11170 and 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and (b). ALJ-1, at 3, para. 8(a).
b. Respondent issued at least 35 prescriptions to her husband, S.P., outside the usual course of professional practice or for other than legitimate medical purposes in violation of state and federal law. From April 21, 2012, through June 12, 2014, Respondent issued prescriptions to S.P. without any documentation or examination. California regulations explicitly provide that the failure to medically evaluate a patient to determine his or her need for a controlled substance before prescribing a controlled substance, or to document such an evaluation in the patient's records, means that the physician is not prescribing in the usual course of professional practice. Respondent's actions violated state and federal law. ALJ-1, at 3-4, para. 8(b).
6. Respondent also engaged in other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety in violation of 21 U.S.C. 823(f)(5). Specifically, Respondent displayed a lack of candor during DEA's investigation. In March 2014, Respondent told DEA investigators that patient files they requested “were not there,” and that at least some of the missing files were at a location in Lake Forest, California, for which she did not know the address. During subsequent questioning, Respondent again stated that the charts requested by the DEA were at another location, but she did not know the location. Respondent also stated that the dispensing log that DEA requested was actually with the missing charts. In fact, the charts in question, and the dispensing log, did not exist. Then in June 2014, Respondent told a Medical Board investigator that she did not know who owned the marijuana that was found in a suitcase in the garage of her registered location. She made this statement despite the fact that additional stashes of marijuana and large amounts of cash were discovered throughout her registered location, and she and her husband were the only individuals who lived there. ALJ-1, at 4, para. 9.
The Government presented its case through the testimony of five witnesses. First, the Government presented the testimony of a Diversion Investigator (hereinafter, DI 1). Tr. 13-61, 317-319. DI 1 has been a Diversion Investigator for 14 years, and has been assigned to the DEA office in Riverside, California, for the past 7 years.
I find DI 1's testimony to be thorough, detailed, and internally consistent. Therefore, I merit it as credible in this Recommended Decision.
Second, the Government presented the testimony of a Special Agent of the California Department of Justice (hereinafter, SA 1).
I find SA 1's testimony to be thorough and internally consistent. Therefore, I merit SA 1's testimony as credible in this Recommended Decision.
The third Government witness was a Special Agent with the California Department of Justice (hereinafter, SA 2).
I find SA 2's testimony to be thorough and internally consistent. Therefore, I merit SA 2's testimony as credible in this Recommended Decision.
The fourth witness the Government called to testify was a second Diversion Investigator (hereinafter, DI 2).
I find DI 2's testimony to be thorough and internally consistent. Therefore, I merit DI 2's testimony as credible in this Recommended Decision.
Finally, the Government presented the testimony of Dr. Timothy Munzing, M.D. (hereinafter, Dr. Munzing).
Dr. Munzing testified about the standard of care in California.
I find Dr. Munzing's testimony to be thorough, detailed, and internally consistent.
Respondent presented her case through her own testimony, which she limited to the identification of two documents.
While Respondent's testimony laid the foundation for the admission of her two exhibits, on cross-examination her answers were somewhat combative, confusing, and evasive. For example, Respondent was asked in several different ways whether she had provided DEA with her dispensing log in March 2014, and she avoided actually answering the question, finally stating “I don't recall.” Tr. 309-12. Respondent also clearly distorted the facts when she testified that Respondent's Exhibit 1 concerned prescriptions between March 13, 2014, and June 13, 2014, because the first entry on the dispensing log is January 21, 2014.
When Respondent was asked if investigators requested a dispensing log on June 13, 2014, Respondent answered, “[N]obody asked me anything. They broke down my door, I was detained. So there was no—nobody asked me
The factual findings below are based on a preponderance of the evidence, including the detailed, credible, and competent testimony of the aforementioned witnesses, the exhibits entered into evidence, and the record before me.
The parties agreed to 14 stipulations (“Stip.”), which are accepted as facts in these proceedings:
1. Respondent is registered with the DEA as a practitioner to handle Controlled Substances in Schedules II-V under DEA COR #BM5370123 at Beautymark Wellness Center, 361 Hospital Road, Suite 324, Newport Beach, California 92663. This DEA COR is due to expire by its terms on January 31, 2018. ALJ-9, 24, 25.
2. On August 5, 2015, Respondent sought to transfer her DEA registration to 8409 N. Military Trail, Suite 126, West Palm Beach, Florida 33410. DEA assigned control number W15069021C to Respondent's pending application for transfer. ALJ-9, 24, 25.
3. Respondent is licensed to practice medicine in California under license number 55272. Respondent's California medical license is due to expire May 31, 2019. ALJ-9, 24, 25.
4. On or about September 26, 2013, Respondent changed her DEA registration address to Beautymark Wellness Center, 22391 Sunbook (sic), Mission Viejo, California. On or about August 19, 2014, Respondent changed her DEA registration address to 361 Hospital Road, Suite 324, Newport Beach, California. ALJ-9, 24, 25.
5. On or about March 13, 2014, law enforcement officials (including DEA investigators) served an administrative inspection warrant (AIW) at Respondent's then-registered address and residence, Beautymark Wellness Center, 22391 Sunbrook, Mission Viejo, California 92692. ALJ-9, 24, 25.
6. On or about June 13, 2014, law enforcement officials (including DEA investigators) executed a search warrant at Respondent's then-registered address and residence, Beautymark Wellness Center, 22391 Sunbrook, Mission Viejo, California 92692. ALJ-9, 24, 25.
7. DEA lists Alprazolam (Xanax) as a Schedule IV controlled substance. ALJ-44; Tr. 6.
8. DEA lists Clonazepam (Klonopin) as a Schedule IV controlled substance. ALJ-44; Tr. 6.
9. DEA lists Diethylpropion hydrochloride as a Schedule IV controlled substance. ALJ-44; Tr. 6.
10. During the events at issue, DEA listed Hydrocodone as a Schedule III controlled substance. ALJ-44; Tr. 6.
11. DEA lists Phentermine as a Schedule IV controlled substance. ALJ-44; Tr. 6.
12. DEA lists Temazepam as Schedule IV controlled substance. ALJ-44; Tr. 6.
13. DEA lists Testosterone as a Schedule III controlled substance. ALJ-44; Tr. 6.
14. DEA lists Zolpidem as a Schedule IV controlled substance. ALJ-44; Tr. 6.
1. DEA and Medical Board personnel participated in the execution of the AIW on March 13, 2014, at Respondent's home. Tr. 20, 65, 94.
2. DI 1, SA 1, SA 2, and DI 2 participated in the execution of the AIW on March 13, 2014, at Respondent's home.
3. During the execution of the AIW, Respondent identified the area of her home that she used as her office.
4. During the execution of the AIW, multiple bottles of controlled substances were found on the desk, on the shelf, and on the printer in Respondent's office.
5. The controlled substances found in Respondent's office were not secured in any way, and there did not appear to be any place to secure them in her office.
6. Some of the controlled substances found in Respondent's home during the AIW were in prescription bottles that bore labels from commercial pharmacies, indicating that the prescriptions were for individuals who did not live in Respondent's home.
7. DI 1 did not notice a lock on Respondent's door. Tr. 39. SA 1 does not believe there was a lock on Respondent's office door.
8. The DEA investigators requested that Respondent purchase some type of safe in which to store the controlled substances,
9. DEA investigators took an inventory of the controlled substances they found in Respondent's office.
10. DEA investigators asked Respondent to provide them with patient charts during the execution of the AIW.
11. Some patient charts were located in Respondent's garage, a location where the investigators looked while trying to locate the charts of specific patients.
12. Respondent did not provide all of the patient records requested by DEA during the AIW. Tr. 23, 54. Respondent told the DEA investigators that the patient records were at a storage facility in Lake Forest, California, but she did not know the address of the facility or where it was located.
13. Respondent never provided to DEA copies of all of the patient charts that DEA had requested.
14. The DEA investigators asked Respondent for her dispensing logs and Respondent told them that her dispensing logs were with her patient charts in the storage facility. Tr. 24, 54,
15. The DEA investigators asked Respondent to provide them with an initial inventory and a biennial inventory, but Respondent did not provide either of them to the DEA.
16. Without an initial or biennial inventory it is not possible to conduct a reasonable inventory of controlled substances.
17. The DEA investigators asked Respondent for copies of invoices for controlled substances that she had received and Respondent provided some.
18. Respondent should have had more invoices than she provided to the DEA investigators because the invoices she provided did not account for all the controlled substances that were found in her office on March 13, 2014.
19. An invoice for controlled substances needs to be kept for two years.
20. At the conclusion of the execution of the AIW, DI 1 had a discussion with Respondent concerning the missing patient charts and dispensing logs, as well as the security of controlled substances.
21. As an investigator for the Medical Board, SA 1 was concerned about how Respondent was storing her controlled substances, and on March 13, 2014, SA 1 informed Respondent that controlled substances needed to be locked-up.
22. During the AIW, Respondent told SA 1 that she ordered prescriptions in her own name for office use and that she dispensed them to her patients.
23. During the AIW, it was determined that only two individuals lived in Respondent's home; those individuals were Respondent and her husband, S.P.
24. During the AIW, three pistols were found in Respondent's home, two of them belonged to Respondent, but the ownership of the third was undetermined.
25. During the AIW, SA 1 asked Respondent if she would be willing to be interviewed regarding the Medical Board case that SA 1 was investigating.
26. Government Exhibit 12 is a copy of the transcript of the interview SA 1 conducted with Respondent on April 4, 2014.
27. During the interview, Respondent stated that she stored some office equipment and furniture in her mother-in-law's garage, but all of her patient charts were in her own garage. Tr. 71, 78; GE-12, at 28, 82-84.
28. During the interview, Respondent stated that she had prescribed an antibiotic to herself. Tr. 73; GE-12, at 55. Respondent also said that she prescribed testosterone in her own name, but that the medication was for office use.
29. During the interview, Respondent also stated that she prescribed phentermine and alprazolam to herself *[for office use.]
30. During the interview, Respondent explained that she would often dispense medication to her patients if they were using it for the first time. Tr. 74; GE-12, at 62. Respondent also stated that if the medication worked well for the patient she would then possibly write the patient a prescription for the medicine.
31. During the interview, SA 1 had a discussion with Respondent concerning the fact that when Respondent dispensed controlled substances to patients those prescriptions would not show up in the PMP report. Tr. 74-75; GE-12, at 63. SA 1 also explained to Respondent that a patient could be placed in danger because the prescriptions Respondent provided to patients would not be in the PMP system.
32. During the interview, SA 1 asked Respondent if she had taken any steps to secure the controlled substances in her home, and Respondent indicated that she had not. Tr. 77; GE-12, at 77-78.
33. After the interview, SA 1 believed that she had sufficient probable cause to draft a search warrant for Respondent's residence. Tr. 80. After drafting the search warrant, SA 1 had it signed by a judge. Tr. 81.
34. DI 1, SA 1, SA 2, and DI 2 returned to Respondent's home on June 13, 2014, when the Medical Board executed a search warrant of Respondent's office and residence.
35. Government Exhibit 5 consists of photographs taken at Respondent's home on June 13, 2014, when the search warrant was executed.
36. The condition of Respondent's office on June 13, 2014, looked the same as it did on March 13, 2014, with controlled substances being found all over the office area.
37. Some of the controlled substances found in Respondent's home on June 13, 2014, were in prescription bottles that bore labels from commercial pharmacies, indicating that the prescriptions were for individuals who did not live in Respondent's home.
38. On June 13, 2014, DEA asked Respondent for her dispensing log.
39. On June 13, 2014, DEA took another inventory of the controlled substances that were found in Respondent's home and that inventory revealed a significant difference from the March 13, 2014 inventory.
40. On June 13, 2014, marijuana was discovered in a suitcase in Respondent's garage. Tr. 45, 111. Marijuana was also found in Respondent's kitchen and bedroom.
41. Government Exhibit 10 contains photographs taken at Respondent's home during the execution of the search warrant that depict marijuana that was found there.
42. On June 13, 2014, SA 1 asked both Respondent and her husband whether either of them had a valid recommendation for medical marijuana.
43. Respondent was questioned about the marijuana and she denied knowledge of how it came to be in her house.
44. Government Exhibit 11 contains photographs taken at Respondent's home during the execution of the search warrant that depict the patient charts that were found there.
45. SA 1 questioned Respondent about the location of missing patient charts, to include the chart for Respondent's husband.
46. During the June 13, 2014 search of Respondent's home, the investigators found $26,100 in cash.
47. Government Exhibit 14 is the search warrant return that SA 1 filed with the Orange County Superior Court after the search warrant was executed, along with property receipts of the items that were seized from Respondent's home during the search.
48. Government Exhibit 13 is a copy of a PMP report that the DEA obtained from the California Department of Justice concerning prescriptions written by Respondent.
49. Government Exhibit 7 contains copies of records from the E-Compounding Pharmacy concerning prescriptions written by Respondent for herself. Tr. 113.
50. Government Exhibit 8 contains copies of prescriptions and related documents concerning prescriptions that Respondent wrote for her husband, S.P., that were obtained from various pharmacies.
51. The standard of care in California requires that during an initial visit with a patient a doctor must: Obtain a history from the patient concerning the patient's current complaint; review the symptoms of the patient's current complaint; determine the cause of the patient's current condition and how long the patient has had the condition; obtain a medical history from the patient; determine what medications the patient has been taking, both prescriptions and over-the-counter medications; determine the patient's drug and alcohol history; perform a general overall physical examination of the patient, and a detailed examination of the area of the patient's body that is the focus of the current complaint; determine whether any laboratory or other type of testing is needed; determine whether a referral to a specialist is needed; advise the patient of the risks and benefits of prescribed medications; and document what had been performed.
52. The standard of care in California requires that during a follow-up visit with a patient that a doctor must: Get an updated history to determine if there have been changes in the patient's condition; determine whether the treatment is working; determine current drug and alcohol usage; and monitor the patient through use of PMP reports and urine screening.
53. The standard of care in California requires that a doctor have a medical record for a patient to whom prescriptions are issued.
54. The standard of care in California requires that a doctor include the following items in a patient's medical record: History, exam, consent, diagnosis, management plan; results of laboratory testing; results of imaging studies; prescriptions issued; PMP reports run for the patient; and/or results of urine screening.
55. Assuming there is no medical record for S.P., the 27 prescriptions
56. The prescriptions in Government Exhibit 8 are outside the standard of care because of the absence of a medical record that documents that the doctor has performed the type of medical examination that must be performed before the doctor issues a prescription.
57. The California standard of care and California Health and Safety Code § 11170 provide that a doctor may not self-prescribe controlled substances. Tr. 134, 200. In addition, the American Medical Association Code of Ethics says that a doctor cannot self-prescribe or prescribe to close relatives.
58. Unless a California doctor follows the proper procedures for obtaining a controlled substance “for office use,” it is outside the standard of care in California as well as the course of professional practice for a doctor to write a prescription for a controlled substance “for office use.”
59. A prescription for 300, 450, or 600 tablets of phentermine would be a very large quantity if the prescription was for office use. Tr. 207, 212-13, 247. If a patient needed that much phentermine, the patient could be issued a prescription that would then be reported to the PMP system. Tr. 207, 210-11, 215, 242. A prescription written for office use of such large quantity of phentermine would be outside the standard of care in California.
60. A prescription for office use of 300 tablets of Ambien would be an excessive number of tablets and outside the standard of care in California.
61. Respondent wrote four prescriptions for hydrocodone for office use. GE-7, at 12, 13, 36 (2 prescriptions). Hydrocodone should not be dispensed from the office because it would not provide immediate relief, but might cause the patient to become drowsy. Tr. 241-42. Thus, prescribing hydrocodone for office use is outside the standard of care in California.
62. The 69 prescriptions for controlled substances written by Respondent to herself, contained in Government Exhibit 7, are outside the standard of care in California. Tr. 203-23, 225-28, 243-44; GE-7, at 5, 23, 25, 26, 29, 31 (4 prescriptions), 33, 34, 37, 40 (2 prescriptions), 41 (4 prescriptions), 42-45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 54, 57, 59-61, 63 (2 prescriptions), 64, 67-70, 72-74, 86, 87, 89, 95 (4 prescriptions), 99, 101, 107, 110, 112-14, 122, 130, 133, 135, 139, 140 (3 prescriptions), 153 (2 prescriptions), 158, 169, 179 (2 prescriptions).
63. Four prescriptions that Respondent wrote to herself for controlled substances also included dosing instructions. Tr. 226-28; GE-7, at 40 (2 prescriptions), 47, 158. Dosing instructions on a prescription would be inconsistent with a prescription issued for office use because dosing instructions would be determined at the time the medication was prescribed to a
64. Seven prescriptions that Respondent wrote for controlled substances contain no patient name, nor do they indicate that they were for office use. Tr. 224-25; GE-7, at 16, 22, 24, 28 (3 prescriptions), 30. These seven prescriptions were issued outside the California standard of care because there is no listed patient, nor is there any stated reason for any of the prescriptions. Tr. 224-25.
65. Twenty-four
66. Seventy prescriptions that Respondent wrote to herself for controlled substances contain a notation that the prescription was for office use.
67. Respondent wrote two prescriptions for controlled substances where she listed the patient's name as “office use.”
To revoke a respondent's registration, the Government must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the regulatory requirements for revocation are satisfied.
(1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(2) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.
(3) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
These public interest factors are considered separately.
The Government bears the initial burden of proof and must justify revocation by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Government filed its Post-Hearing Brief on March 19, 2018.
The Government argues that its evidence is “largely uncontested and entirely unrebutted.” ALJ-50, at 12. Specifically, the Government claims that it offered unrebutted evidence under Factors Two, Four, and Five.
Under Factors Two and Four, the Government argues that the evidence shows that Respondent “routinely prescribed controlled substances without a patient chart,” issued prescriptions for controlled substances to herself, and violated storage and recordkeeping requirements under state and federal law. ALJ-50, at 15. After citing the DEA's prescription requirement, the Government notes that California has adopted the same requirement as set forth in 21 CFR 1306.04(a), that a prescription must be issued for a “ `legitimate medical purpose' ” and in the “ `usual course of . . . professional practice.' ”
Looking at the prescriptions in Government's Exhibit 8, the Government argues that it is undisputed that Respondent wrote at least 50
Next, looking at Government Exhibit 7, the Government argues that Respondent issued at least 179 prescriptions for controlled substances to herself between January and December 2012. ALJ-50, at 17. The Government notes that many of the prescriptions in Government Exhibit 7 were issued “for office use” while others listed Respondent's name as the patient.
The Government then discusses the recordkeeping and storage violations discovered during service of the AIW and search warrant. ALJ-50, at 18-19. The Government contends that Respondent “was not able to produce either an initial or biennial inventory of the controlled substances stored at her registered address.” ALJ-50, at 18. Additionally, Respondent never provided investigators with a dispensing log.
With respect to the storage violation, the Government argues that Respondent ignored the attempts made by DEA and state investigators “to bring her into compliance with” DEA's storage requirements. ALJ-50, at 19. During the inspection in March 2014, Respondent assured DEA investigators that she would promptly secure the controlled substances in her office.
Based on the prescriptions in Government Exhibits 7 and 8, and the evidence that Respondent failed to keep complete records and properly secure controlled substances, the Government argues that “Factors Two and Four weigh heavily in favor of revoking” Respondent's COR. ALJ-50, at 20.
Citing DEA precedent, the Government next asserts that Respondent's lack of candor supports an “adverse finding” under Factor Five. ALJ-50, at 20. The Government claims that Respondent “attempted to mislead federal and state investigators” during their investigation by making a “series of misleading statements.” ALJ-50, at 13. For instance, the Government points to the inconsistent statements Respondent made to investigators regarding her patient file for S.P. ALJ-50, at 20. During the March inspection, Respondent stated that all patient files were located at an off-site facility.
The Government then examines the marijuana, cash, and firearms discovered in Respondent's home. ALJ-50, at 21. The Government notes that Respondent lacked the authority to possess marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, “in the course of her professional practice.” ALJ-50, at 21. Additionally, when investigators found a suitcase of marijuana in her garage, Respondent denied having any knowledge of its presence at her home.
Because Respondent failed to offer “substantive testimony” at the hearing, the Government argues that she “cannot be viewed as having accepted responsibility.” ALJ-50, at 22. By failing to accept responsibility, the Government contends that Respondent “has not met her burden” to rebut the Government's
With respect to the DEA's interest in specific and general deterrence, the Government contends that “[a] refusal to sanction [Respondent's] prolonged and egregious violations here would send the wrong message to other practitioners.” ALJ-50, at 23. The Government concludes that the DEA's interest in deterrence weighs in favor of revoking Respondent's COR. ALJ-50, at 24.
Respondent submitted her Post-Hearing Brief on March 19, 2018.
With respect to the controlled substances that were observed unsecured in her home office, Respondent explains that many of them were “expired and waiting to be safely disposed.” ALJ-51, at 5, 14. Additionally, she states that “[n]o patients ever went inside the office,” patients were never left unattended, only one patient was allowed in her home at a time, and she and her husband, S.P., were the only individuals living in the home.
In regard to the allegation that Respondent failed to maintain adequate inventories, Respondent asserts that she “kept all the medication purchase orders as an inventory guide.” ALJ-51, at 6. Respondent acknowledges that these purchase orders are not in evidence and contends that she assumed, as a
Respondent also addresses the alleged inconsistencies in her statements to investigators regarding the location of her patient files. She believed some of the missing patient files could have been left in the cabinets or office furniture that were moved into storage after the abrupt closing of her practice. ALJ-51, at 8. She also contends that investigators never requested that she take them to the storage location and further notes that the search warrant authorized investigators to search the storage facility, but they never did.
Respondent also discusses the CURES reports that DEA and state investigators ran of her prescribing history. ALJ-51, at 11. Respondent acknowledges that “[Agent] SA 1's concerns were legitimate”; however, the CURES reports “clearly showed” that Respondent's patients “did not fit the category for high potential for abuse, addiction or diversion.”
Respondent provides an explanation regarding the prescription bottles with labels that bore patients' names that were found in her office during service of the search warrant. She argues that it is not uncommon for “patients [to] leave prescriptions with their doctors” for a variety of reasons. ALJ-51, at 14. Without pointing to a specific example, Respondent claims that a patient may leave a prescription bottle with her for it to be administered in the office, to pick it up at a later date, or for “issues of privacy.”
Regarding the discrepancies between the controlled substances inventoried by investigators in March and June, Respondent argues that the missing controlled substances were dispensed and documented in a dispensing log, patient chart, or both. ALJ-51, at 14. Presumably, the dispensing log she refers to is Respondent's Exhibit 1.
Respondent argues that the large amount of cash discovered at her home during the search warrant represented “some savings [she] had put away through the years.” ALJ-51, at 15. Respondent also states, as she did to investigators, that she was unaware of the marijuana in the suitcase in her garage.
Addressing the allegation of self-prescribing, Respondent explains that the prescriptions in Government Exhibit 7 were phoned in by either herself or a staff member calling under her supervision. ALJ-51, at 15. According to Respondent, the dispensing pharmacy, E-Compounding, used “generic prescription forms,” instead of the proper order form, and incorrectly wrote Respondent's “name on the prescriptions as if [she] were the patient.”
In response to the issue of prescribing to S.P., Respondent argues that “[t]here are no specific regulations or laws prohibiting physicians from treating family members.” ALJ-51, at 17. She then cites the American Medical Association's Code of Medical Ethics to support the proposition that physicians may provide medical care to family members in emergencies or “ `isolated settings where there are no other qualified physicians available.' ”
Throughout her brief, Respondent cites to ongoing issues in her personal life. Respondent opines that “circumstances of extreme duress in [her] personal life should have been taken into consideration.” ALJ-51, at 12. She also highlights “harassment and stalking” and threats of violence made by her ex-husband.
In this case, it is undisputed that Respondent holds a valid and current state license to practice medicine in California. Stip. 3. The record contains no evidence of a recommendation regarding Respondent's medical privileges by a relevant state licensing board or professional disciplinary authority. However, possession of a state license does not entitle a holder of that license to a DEA registration.
At the hearing, the Government presented evidence that Respondent is not currently licensed to practice medicine in Florida. Tr. 133. Respondent presented Respondent's Exhibit 2, her expired Florida medical license. *[The Government Prehearing Statement alleged, “Respondent is presently not licensed to practice medicine in Florida.” ALJ-9, at 3.
DEA precedent establishes that where the record contains no evidence of a recommendation by a state licensing board that absence does not weigh for or against revocation.
As to Factor Three, there is no evidence that Respondent has been convicted of an offense under either federal or California law “relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f)(3). However, there are a number of reasons why even a person who has engaged in criminal misconduct may never have been convicted of an offense or even prosecuted for one.
Factors Two and Four are often analyzed together.
Here, the Government alleges that revocation of Respondent's COR and denial of her pending application is appropriate under Factors Two and Four (as well as Factor Five) for the following reasons: (1) Improper storage; (2) failing to maintain proper inventories and dispensing logs; (3) possession of controlled substances with the names of other individuals on the bottle; (4) improperly prescribing controlled substances “for office use”; (5) prescribing to S.P. without maintaining a medical record for S.P.; and (6) displaying a lack of candor during the investigation. ALJ-1, at 2-4.
Concerning improper storage of controlled substances, the Government asserts that Respondent was found to be improperly storing controlled substances on March 13, 2014, and again on June 13, 2014, in violation of 21 CFR 1301.75(a) and (b). ALJ-1, at 2, paras. 3, 5. Specifically, the Government claims that on both dates, investigators found a variety of controlled substances located on open shelves, on top of the office copier or desk, and in unlocked glass cabinets in Respondent's office.
DEA regulations provide that controlled substances “shall be stored in a securely locked, substantially constructed cabinet.” 21 CFR 1301.75(a), (b). The regulations do not define the term “substantially constructed cabinet.”
Controlled substances were observed in Respondent's office on two occasions: During service of the AIW in March 2014 and during execution of the search warrant in June 2014. Between those dates, Respondent's COR authorized her to possess and prescribe controlled substances in Schedules II-V. GE-1, at 1.
During the inspection in March, investigators found multiple bottles of controlled substances on the desk, on the shelf, and on the printer in Respondent's office. FF 4. In fact, the investigators found “a great deal of controlled substances” in Schedules III-V. Tr. 22; GE-3, at 1-2. Furthermore, the controlled substances found in Respondent's office were not secured in any way, and there did not appear to be any place to secure them in her office. FF 5. During the inspection, DEA investigators requested that Respondent purchase some type of safe in which to store the controlled substances and Respondent indicated that one would be purchased that day. FF 8. Following the inspection, SA 1 informed Respondent that controlled substances needed to be locked-up. FF 21.
On June 13, 2014, when DEA investigators returned to Respondent's office the condition of her office looked the same as it did on March 13, 2014, with controlled substances being found all over the office area. FF 35, 36. There was no safe in Respondent's office on June 13, 2014.
Although the record is clear that controlled substances were not “stored in a securely locked, substantially constructed cabinet,” 21 CFR 1301.75(a) and (b), at the time of the inspection and search, the evidence is less than clear concerning whether the door to Respondent's office could be locked. In response to Government counsel's question about whether she noticed a lock on the office door, FF 8, DI 1 responded, “No.” Tr. 39. SA 1 was unsure whether there was a lock on the door, stating “I do not believe there was.” Tr. 67. DI 2 testified, however, that “[t]here may have been” a lock on the door, but it was open when investigators entered the home to serve the AIW. Tr. 124. The fact that the door was already open when investigators entered the home, however, could be easily explained by the fact that a separate team of officers made the initial entry into the home to clear the way for investigators. Tr. 20, 110, 122;
It is also troubling that investigators had two opportunities to photograph the door to the office and did not do so. Investigators took extensive photographic evidence of the office during service of the search warrant and could have easily turned the camera on the door. Furthermore, the fact that three investigators who inspected Respondent's office on two occasions were unable to testify with confidence that the office door could not be locked undermines the Government's allegation that the “investigators could not lock . . . [the] office door.” ALJ-1, at 2, para. 3. If there was a lock on the office door, as DI 2 believes there may have been, Tr. 124, the office could have been locked. The question then becomes, if Respondent could lock her office door, would the manner in which she stored her controlled substances in her office be in compliance with 21 CFR 1301.75(b).
In a fairly recent case, the Administrator concluded that a registrant was in substantial compliance with 21 CFR 1301.75(b) when he left a small amount of controlled substances outside a safe overnight so they could be administered in the morning, but where the controlled substances were also in a small locked room and the office was protected by a security alarm system.
Unlike Dr. Kelly, who occasionally set out medications in a room that was only used to store controlled substances so that his office manager could administer the medication to early arriving patients, Respondent had controlled substances continually strewn all about her office. FF 3;
Furthermore, the evidence on the record demonstrates that Respondent was fully on notice that her office did not constitute adequate secure storage under DEA regulations, because she was informed of that fact by both SA 1 and DI 1 on March 13, 2014, and she made no effort to correct this violation by June 13, 2014. FF 20 & 21.]
Accordingly, the allegation contained in Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the OSC that Respondent violated 21 CFR 1301.75(b) on both March 13, 2014, and June 13, 2014, when investigators found a variety of controlled substances located on open shelves, on top of the office copier or desk, and in unlocked glass cabinets in Respondent's office is
The Government next alleges that Respondent failed to “maintain complete and accurate records,” in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2266; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11190; 21 U.S.C. 827(a)(1), and (a)(3); 21 U.S.C. 842(a)(5); 21 CFR 1304.03(b), 1304.04(a), 1306.04, 1304.11(c), 1304.21(a), and 1304.22(c). ALJ-1, at 2, paras. 4-5. Specifically, the Government contends that during the March inspection and June search, investigators were unable to find an initial inventory; biennial inventory; 222 Forms; or dispensing log, for Respondent's controlled substances.
Registrants are required to keep inventories for two years from the date of their creation.
During the March inspection, DI 1 asked Respondent to provide the initial and biennial inventories of controlled substances used at her registered address. FF 14. Respondent did not
Although there is no direct evidence that Respondent failed to create an initial inventory of the controlled substances she maintained at her Mission Viejo address,
Accordingly, the allegation that Respondent failed to maintain an initial inventory, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 827(b) and 21 CFR 1304.04(a), as alleged in paragraph 4 of the OSC, is
One of a registrant's recordkeeping responsibilities under Federal law includes the requirement to document each instance in which the registrant dispenses a controlled substance to a patient.
The record shows that DI 1 asked Respondent for her dispensing logs on March 13, 2014, and Respondent did not provide any. FF 12, 14. Respondent said the dispensing logs were at her mother-in-law's home in Lake Forest, California. FF 14. DI 1 again requested dispensing records at the time of conducting the June search, and again DI 1 testified that Respondent failed to provide investigators with her dispensing logs or tell them where such records were kept.
Although DI 1 and DI 2 testified they never received a dispensing log from Respondent, Tr. 24, 35-36, 39, 49-50, 128, 132, the property receipt from the June 2014 search indicates that a “Class III Med log” was seized from Respondent's office. GE-14, at 9. The Government did not introduce the “Class III Med log” into evidence. At the hearing, however, Respondent produced a 10-page photocopied document that she testified was seized during the search. Tr. 302-03; RE-1. “Class III Meds Dispensing Log” is written on the cover of the exhibit. RE-1, at 1. Respondent testified that she received copies of the document in 2016 from the district attorney prosecuting her criminal case.
Assuming Respondent's Exhibit 1 is Respondent's dispensing log, it fails to satisfy her recordkeeping responsibility under Section 1304.22(c) for a number of reasons. First, it fails to explain the variances discovered in Respondent's office stock between March and June 2014 when investigators counted the controlled substances on-hand in her home office. The DI testified that “[t]here were missing controlled substances” in June compared to the inventory taken in March. Tr. 40-41, 57-58. DI 1 characterized the discrepancy as significant. Tr. 40. DEA precedent establishes that the inability to account for controlled substances missing from a registrant's inventory by production of dispensing records constitutes a violation of Section 1304.22(c).
Comparing Respondent's Exhibit 1 to the inventories taken during the March and June searches reveals that Respondent's dispensing log fails to account for several controlled substances. RE-1; GE-3; GE-14, at 11-12;
To the extent that there are unresolved discrepancies between the controlled substances counted during the March inspection and the June search, the logical conclusion based on the lack of additional dispensing records in evidence is that Respondent failed to maintain the required records. Notwithstanding Respondent's Exhibit 1, the fact that investigators never found other dispensing records that could reconcile the variances between March and June, despite asking multiple times for her dispensing logs, is “persuasive proof of non-compliance.”
Second, Respondent's Exhibit 1 does not contain patient addresses or phone numbers, as required by 21 CFR 1304.22(c) and California law. RE-1, at 2-10; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11190(c)(1);
Failure to provide DEA with accurate records which correctly reflect the controlled substances dispensed by a registrant constitutes a recordkeeping violation and is *[evidence that Respondent's registration is] inconsistent with the public interest.
The Government's next recordkeeping allegation concerns receiving records. ALJ-1, at 2, para. 4. Specifically, the Government contends that Respondent was unable to provide any receiving records, such as DEA 222 Forms, to investigators in March and June 2014, other than a series of invoices, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 827 and 842(a)(5), and 21 CFR 1304.21(a). ALJ-1, at 2, para. 4.
During the inspection in March 2014, DI 1 requested recordkeeping documents from Respondent, specifically invoices. FF 17. The invoices that Respondent provided are contained in Government Exhibit 2.
On March 13, 2014, however, Respondent possessed quantities of 11 different controlled substances for which she had no invoices, and she also possessed 462 tablets of hydrocodone.
While the Government also alleged that Respondent did not produce any DEA 222 Forms, none of the investigators provided any testimony regarding 222 Forms. Based on the testimony of all four investigators, it is not possible to discern whether they were looking for 222 Forms, whether Respondent should have kept 222 Forms, or whether they asked for receiving records other than invoices. Furthermore, Respondent did not possess any Schedule I or II controlled substances on March 13, 2014.
Accordingly, the allegation that Respondent failed to maintain receiving records, as alleged in paragraph 4 of the OSC, in violation of 21 CFR 1304.21(a), is
The Government also alleged that when Respondent's controlled substances were inventoried on June 13, 2014, she was unable to account for some of the controlled substances that she possessed on March 13, 2014. ALJ-1, at 3, para. 6. Specifically, the Government alleges that Respondent was not able to account for:
It is the Government's responsibility to “ `sift through the records and highlight that information which is probative of the issues in the proceeding.' ”
The following table lists the specific controlled substances the Government alleged that Respondent could not account for on June 13, 2014. The table compares the inventory of those controlled substances taken by the DEA on March 13, 2014, with the inventory taken on June 13, 2014 from Respondent's office. In addition, the table includes the number of these controlled substances that Respondent dispensed between those two dates, as indicated by her dispensing log that was seized during the search on June 13, 2014.
While this table reveals that Respondent could not account for some of the controlled substances she was missing on June 13, 2014, the numbers are not as large as those alleged by the Government. For example, Respondent was not missing any clonazepam, and she actually accounted for more phentermine on June 13, 2014, than she started with on March 13, 2014.
None of the regulations cited by the Government in the OSC, 21 CFR 1304.22(c), 21 CFR 1306.04, and Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11190, require that Respondent be able to account for her controlled substances. Both 21 CFR 1304.22(c) and Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11190 address the requirement to maintain dispensing logs. The other cited regulation, 21 CFR 1306.04, addresses the requirements for issuing prescriptions and has no relevance to Respondent's inability to account for her controlled substances. The inability to account for a significant number of dosage units, however, creates a grave risk of diversion.
[*Omitted. The violations of law have been considered with regard to her lack of complete dispensing logs.]
The Government next alleged that Respondent unlawfully issued over 75 prescriptions between February 16, 2010, and July 13, 2015.
Under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), it is unlawful for a person to distribute controlled substances, except as authorized under the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). To combat abuse and diversion of controlled substances, “Congress devised a closed regulatory system making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA.”
A controlled substance prescription is not valid unless it is “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a). Federal regulations further provide that “[a]n order purporting to be a prescription issued not in the usual course of professional treatment . . . is not a prescription within the meaning and intent of [21 U.S.C. 829] and . . . the person issuing it[ ] shall be subject to the penalties provided for violations of [controlled substance laws].”
There are four ways to prove that a practitioner violated the prescription requirements of 21 CFR 1306.04(a): (1) By providing expert testimony that the prescription was not issued for a legitimate medical purpose or in the usual course of professional practice; (2) by showing that a practitioner violated “a state medical practice standard which is sufficiently tied to a state law finding of illegitimacy to support a similar finding under Federal law”; (3) by demonstrating that the respondent “knowingly diverted drugs”; and/or (4) by showing that the respondent violated a state medical practice standard “which has a substantial relationship to the CSA's purpose of preventing substance abuse and diversion.”
In this case, the Government has presented evidence that touches on two of the four methods of proving a violation of 21 CFR 1306.04(a). First, the Government presented the expert testimony of Dr. Munzing that the prescriptions that Respondent issued to both herself and S.P. were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose and that they were also issued outside the usual course of professional practice. FF 55-62, 64-67. Second, the Government's evidence suggests that by failing to properly keep records of the controlled substances Respondent stored in her office and the manner in which she prescribed controlled substances, she violated state standards which have a substantial relationship to the CSA's goal of preventing diversion.
California law echoes federal standards and provides that “[a] prescription for a controlled substance shall only be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his or her professional practice.” Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11153(a). State law further adds that prescribing a controlled substance without first conducting a proper medical examination “constitutes unprofessional conduct.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2242(a). California law prohibits a
California's controlled substance laws set forth several requirements related to the documentation and reporting of prescriptions. Specifically, California practitioners must document certain information when they prescribe or administer a controlled substance, depending on the schedule of the drug. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11190. Additionally, failing “to maintain adequate and accurate records relating to the provision of services to [] patients constitutes unprofessional conduct.”
The Government alleged that between February 16, 2010, and November 29, 2012, Respondent issued at least 40 prescriptions to herself for controlled substances “for office use,” in violation of 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and (b), and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11170. ALJ-1, at 3, para. 8(a). It is further alleged that the prescriptions Respondent wrote “for office use” were without a legitimate medical purpose and were written outside the course of professional practice.
DEA regulations prohibit a practitioner from obtaining controlled substances “for the purpose of general dispensing to patients.” 21 CFR 1306.04(b). This makes sense in light of the requirement that for a prescription to be valid, it must be written for a “medical purpose” in the ordinary course of professional practice.
Government Exhibit 7 contains 168 prescriptions
At the hearing, the Government directed Dr. Munzing's attention to several prescriptions in Government Exhibit 7 that appear to be examples of prohibited self-prescribing. Dr. Munzing opined that these prescriptions were issued outside the California standard of care. FF 62. As Dr. Munzing noted at the hearing, these prescriptions do not contain any indication they were intended for office use, and instead represent instances of Respondent prescribing a controlled drug to herself, in violation of California law and the California standard of care. FF 57; Tr. 206-10; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11170. [*Omitted.]
Several of the prescriptions were also issued outside the standard of care in California to the extent that they prescribed an extremely high number of pills. FF 59-60. Three prescriptions authorized by Respondent for herself were written for 300, 450, and 600 tablets of phentermine, respectively. FF 59. Phentermine is a Schedule IV controlled substance. Stip. 11. Dr. Munzing testified that 600 tablets of phentermine is “an incredibly high number.” Tr. 213. Further, he added that 450 pills of phentermine are excessive, and a prescription for 450 phentermine tablets would be outside the standard of care in California. Tr. 247-48.
It is also significant that, according to Dr. Munzing, four of the prescriptions Respondent issued to herself contained dosing instructions. FF 63. Because dosing instructions are typically tailored to the patient's needs at the time of seeing the patient, as opposed to when the substance is obtained, the fact that these four prescriptions are accompanied with specific dosing directions strongly suggests that the prescribed substances were intended to be used by the named patient (
Thus, Dr. Munzing's assessment of the prescriptions in Government Exhibit 7 demonstrate that Respondent issued numerous prescriptions outside the course of professional practice in California by prescribing controlled substances to herself, and in a few instances, by prescribing an “incredibly high number” of tablets to herself.
Further, Respondent's post-hearing attempt to blame the pharmacy for incorrectly filling the “office use” prescriptions cannot be considered as evidence.
Accordingly, the allegation that Respondent issued at least 40 prescriptions to herself for controlled substances between February 16, 2010, and November 29, 2012, outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose, as alleged in paragraph 8(a) of the OSC, and in violation of 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and (b), and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11170, is
The Government also alleged that between April 21, 2012, through June 12, 2014,
Title 21 CFR 1306.04(a) details the requirements for issuing a valid prescription. That section states that for a prescription to be effective it “must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of [her] professional practice.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a). That section further provides that “[a]n order purporting to be a prescription issued not in the usual course of professional treatment . . . is not a prescription within the meaning and intent of [the Controlled Substances Act].”
Dr. Munzing testified that under the standard of care in California, a practitioner must maintain a medical record for a patient to whom controlled substances are prescribed. FF 51-53; Tr. 180. Specifically, to meet the California standard of care, the patient's medical record must contain: Details of the medical exam, such as medical history, informed consent, diagnosis, and management plan; results of laboratory testing or imaging; PMP reports; and results of drug tests. FF 54. Notes pertaining to the medical examination itself would likely comprise the bulk of the patient's file, and would narrate details of the patient-physician encounter, including: Current complaint; review of symptoms; cause of the complaint; patient's history of drug and alcohol use; physical examination; and risk and benefits of treatment options. Tr. 176-80.
In this case, the DEA investigators asked Respondent for patient charts when they first went to her home on March 13, 2014. FF 10. While Respondent did have some patient charts in her home, she did not have all of the charts that DEA wanted. FF 11-13. Then again on June 13, 2014, investigators were in Respondent's home looking for specific patient charts, to include a chart for Respondent's husband, S.P. FF 44; Tr. 107. The chart for S.P. was not located during either the AIW or the execution of the search warrant. FF 13, 44. Further, S.P.'s patient file is not part of the Administrative Record. As with the initial inventory, the fact that Respondent did not provide S.P.'s medical file when requested to do so by the investigators and has not produced it during the course of these proceedings strongly suggests that Respondent never created a medical file for her husband.
Here, the Administrative Record demonstrates that between April 21, 2012, and June 12, 2014, Respondent wrote at least 27 prescriptions for controlled substances for S.P. FF 55; GE-8, at 27. Unfortunately, there is no medical record documenting that Respondent performed “an appropriate prior examination” and formulated “a medical indication” concerning S.P. before issuing him prescriptions for controlled substances.
Accordingly, that portion of the Government's allegation that Respondent wrote 27 prescriptions for controlled substances to S.P. outside the course of professional practice and for other than a legitimate medical purpose, as alleged in paragraph 8(b) of the OSC, in violation of 21 CFR 1306.04(a), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2242(a), and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11153(a) is
The Government alleged that the Respondent's lack of candor during the investigation should be considered under Factor Five to provide further weight that Respondent's continued registration is not in the public interest. ALJ-1, at 4, para. 9. The ALJ considered this evidence accordingly under Factor Five, and although I agree with both the ALJ and the Government that in prior DEA decisions,
Here, the Government alleged that Respondent displayed a lack of candor during DEA's investigation. ALJ-1, at 4, para. 9. Specifically, the Government alleged that in March 2014 Respondent told DEA investigators that patient files they requested “were not there,” and that at least some of the missing files were at a location in Lake Forest, California, for which she did not know the address.
As with any allegation, the Government bears the burden of proof regarding its claim that Respondent “displayed a lack of candor during DEA's investigation.” ALJ-1, at 4, para. 9. Concerning this allegation, the Government primarily focuses on statements that Respondent made to investigators while they were at her home on both March 13, 2014, and June 13, 2014. FF 10, 12, 14, 27, 38, 43, 45.
When DEA investigators were at Respondent's home on March 13, 2014, they asked her for some patient charts. FF 10. While Respondent apparently provided some patient charts, which were in her garage, FF 11, she also told the DEA investigators that other requested patient records were at a storage facility in Lake Forest, California, but she did not know the address of the facility or where it was located. FF 12. Respondent had similar conversations with the DEA investigators concerning her dispensing logs. FF 14. She informed the investigators that her dispensing logs were with the patient records in a storage facility.
In a subsequent interview conducted by Special Agent SA 1, Respondent told her that all of the patient charts were located in Respondent's garage. FF 27. Subsequently, on June 13, 2014, Respondent's dispensing log, what there was of it, was found and seized from Respondent's office. GE-14, at 9; RE-1.
The Administrative Record established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent was not truthful in her dealings with DEA investigators when they were at her home on March 13, 2014, and again on June 13, 2014. When questioned about missing patient charts and dispensing records, Respondent initially stated that the charts and records were not at her registered location, but rather were at another location. She also professed no knowledge of where that location was. Later, it was determined that the location was the home of her mother-in-law, a location she surely knew. Eventually, her dispensing log was found in her office, rather than at the home of her mother-in-law. When questioned about the marijuana found in her home, Respondent claimed she had no idea where it came from. As stated earlier, given the quantity and the locations of where the marijuana was found in Respondent's home, her claimed lack of knowledge strains credulity.
Accordingly, the Government's allegation, contained in paragraph 9 of the OSC, that Respondent displayed a lack of candor during the DEA investigation is
According to Florida's online records, of which I take official notice, Respondent's license is “delinquent.”
According to Florida statute, “A practitioner, in good faith and in the course of his or her professional practice only, may prescribe, administer, [or] dispense . . . a controlled substance.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 893.05(1)(a). Further, “practitioner,” as defined by Florida statute, includes “a physician licensed under chapter 458.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 893.02(23).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida is currently delinquent. As such, she is not a “practitioner” as that term is defined by Florida statute. As already discussed, however, a physician must be a practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Florida. Thus, because
With minor modification I have sustained all of the Government's allegations against Respondent concerning her: (1) Improper storage of controlled substances; (2) failing to maintain proper inventories and dispensing logs; (3) improperly prescribing controlled substances to herself and “for office use”; (4) improperly prescribing to S.P. without maintaining a medical record for S.P.; and (5) displaying a lack of candor during the investigation. In sustaining each of these allegations, I have also found that Respondent violated one or more DEA regulations, and one or more regulations of the State of California relating to the practice of medicine and/or controlled substances. I also sustained an allegation that Respondent was unable to account for a significant amount of the controlled substances that she had in her office in March of 2014 when investigators inventoried the controlled substances found in her office on June 13, 2014. Respondent's inability to account for those controlled substances is not a separate violation of DEA regulations, but rather is a result of failure to maintain adequate records as required by both the DEA and the State of California. Finally, although the OSC alleged that Respondent had violated 21 CFR 1306.04 and the Cal. Health and Safety Code § 11350 by possessing controlled substances belonging to other individuals, I did not sustain that allegation.
Specifically, I have found that Respondent failed to properly store a significant amount of controlled substances that she kept in her office in violation of 21 CFR 1301.75(b). Her failure to do so is aggravated by the fact that after being advised on March 13, 2014, and again on April 4, 2014, that her storage was non-compliant, the controlled substances were still improperly stored on June 13, 2014. I have also found that Respondent was deficient in that she: Failed to maintain an initial inventory of the controlled substances she kept at her registered location in violation of 21 U.S.C. 827(b) and 21 CFR 1304.04(a); failed to maintain complete and accurate dispensing records in violation of 21 U.S.C. 827(a)(3), 21 CFR 1304.22(c), and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11190; and that she failed to maintain receiving records as is required by 21 U.S.C. 827 and 842(a)(5), and 21 CFR 1304.21(a). As a result of Respondent's recordkeeping failures, the DEA was not able to conduct a reliable audit of the controlled substances Respondent stored in her office and she was not able to account for a significant amount of her controlled substances, which creates a grave risk of diversion.
In addition, I also found that Respondent had issued numerous prescriptions for no legitimate medical purpose and outside the usual course of professional practice in violation of 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and (b), and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11170. Specifically, Respondent improperly issued 168 prescriptions between February 16, 2010 and November 29, 2012, that were either written for herself or for office use instead of for a particular patient, and between March 30, 2012 and September 16, 2014, she wrote at least 32 prescriptions for controlled substances for S.P. without having a medical record for him. Finally, I have found that Respondent was less than candid in her dealing with DEA investigators, misleading them concerning the existence and/or the location of records and her knowledge about marijuana that was found in her home.
In this case Factors One and Three weigh neither for nor against revocation. However, Factors Two and Four strongly weigh in favor of revoking Respondent's COR and denying her pending application because of her improper storage, improper recordkeeping, and improper prescribing to herself and her husband. *[Omitted sentence.] Considering the public interest factors in their totality, I find that the Government has made a
After the Government presents a
A respondent may accept responsibility by providing evidence of her remorse, her efforts at rehabilitation, and her recognition of the severity of her misconduct.
Here, the Government accurately argued in its Post-Hearing Brief that the “Respondent has not accepted responsibility for her actions.” ALJ-50, at 21. While Respondent presented limited testimony to identify Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2, she presented no testimony concerning the allegations contained in the OSC or concerning whether she accepted responsibility for her conduct that was proven by a preponderance of the evidence. I find, therefore, that Respondent has not accepted any responsibility for the allegations that I have sustained.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Government has made a
When considering whether Respondent's continued registration is consistent with the public interest, I must consider both the egregiousness of her violations and the DEA's interest in deterring future misconduct by both Respondent as well as other registrants.
I find that Respondent's multiple and repeated recordkeeping, security, and prescribing violations, coupled with her lack of candor, are sufficiently egregious to warrant revocation. To begin, “[r]ecordkeeping is one of the CSA's central features; a registrant's accurate and diligent adherence to this obligation is absolutely essential to protect against diversion of controlled substances.”
In addition, while Respondent wrote 200 illegal prescriptions, only a few instances of illegal prescribing can be sufficient to support revocation of a registration. For instance, in
Further, when determining whether revocation is appropriate, the DEA “places great weight on an [applicant's] candor, both during an investigation and in [a] subsequent proceeding.”
Furthermore, although Registrant contends that DEA and state investigators should have “point[ed] out any of the mistakes [she] made, help[ed] [her] fix her mistakes,” Resp Exceptions, at 18, the evidence on the record demonstrated that even after being explicitly told on at least two occasions that her controlled substances required additional security, she failed to adequately secure them. As such, I cannot be assured that Registrant would amend her behavior in the future to avoid repeating the violations found herein.]
Finally, as well as considering the egregiousness of Respondent's violations, I must also consider the DEA's interest in deterring future misconduct by both the respondent as well as other registrants.
The Government established that Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest because of her improper: Storage; recordkeeping; and prescribing; and her lack of candor. Once the Government made a
On October 16, 2020, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Eric R. Shibley, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant) of Seattle, Washington. OSC, at 1. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FN1977290. It alleged that Registrant is without “authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Washington, the state in which [Registrant is] registered with the DEA.”
Specifically, the OSC alleged that the Washington Medical Commission issued an Ex Parte Order of Summary Suspension on August 17, 2020.
The OSC notified Registrant of the right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement, while waiving the right to a hearing, the procedures for electing each option, and the consequences for failing to elect either option.
A DEA Diversion Investigator (hereinafter, DI) served the OSC on Registrant's legal counsel on October 19, 2020. Request for Final Agency Action, dated December 31, 2020 (hereinafter, RFAA), Exhibit (hereinafter, RFAAX) 9 (DI's Declaration). By email dated November 2, 2020, Registrant's counsel informed the DI that “he forwarded a copy of the [OSC] to [Registrant]” and that Registrant “did not plan to contest the matters raised in the [OSC].”
The Government forwarded its RFAA, along with the evidentiary record, to this office on December 31, 2020. In its RFAA, the Government represented that “more than 30-days have passed since Registrant received the [OSC]; however, Registrant has not submitted to DEA a request for hearing.”
Based on the DI's Declaration, the Government's written representations, and my review of the record, I find that the Government accomplished service of the OSC on Registrant by November 2, 2020. I also find that more than thirty days have now passed since the Government accomplished service of the OSC. Further, based on the Government's written representations, I find that neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting to represent the Registrant, requested a hearing, submitted a written statement while waiving Registrant's right to a hearing, or submitted a corrective action plan. Accordingly, I find that Registrant has waived the right to a hearing and the right to submit a written statement and corrective action plan. 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). I, therefore, issue this Decision and Order based on the record submitted by the Government, which constitutes the entire record before me. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. FN1977290 at the registered address of 4700 36th Avenue SW, Seattle, Washington 98126. RFAAX 1, at 1. Pursuant to this registration, Registrant is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner.
On August 17, 2020, the State of Washington Department of Health Washington Medical Commission (hereinafter, Commission) issued an Ex Parte Order of Summary Suspension (hereinafter, Order of Summary Suspension) suspending Registrant's license to practice as a physician and surgeon in Washington State. RFAAX 3, at 1. According to the Order of Summary Suspension, Registrant prescribed controlled substances on multiple occasions from January 2, 2020, to July 1, 2020, while under an Order of Summary Restriction issued by the Commission.
The Order of Summary Restriction issued on January 2, 2020, “demonstrated Respondent's substandard care of patients with regard to his prescribing of controlled substances posed an immediate risk to patients and the public welfare.”
The Order of Summary Suspension ordered the summary suspension of Registrant's license to practice as a physician and surgeon “pending further disciplinary proceedings by the Commission.”
According to Washington's online records, of which I take official notice, Registrant's license is still summarily suspended.
Accordingly, I find that Registrant currently is neither licensed to engage in the practice of medicine nor registered to dispense controlled substances in Washington, the state in which Registrant is registered with the DEA.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term “practitioner” to mean “a physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which he practices.
According to Washington statute, “A practitioner may dispense or deliver a controlled substance to or for an individual or animal only for medical treatment or authorized research in the ordinary course of that practitioner's profession.” Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.308(j) (West, Westlaw current with effective legislation through Chapter 5 of the 2021 Regular Session of the Washington Legislature). Additionally, a “ `prescription' means an order for controlled substances issued by a practitioner duly authorized by law or rule in the state of Washington to prescribe controlled substances within the scope of his or her professional practice for a legitimate medical purpose.” Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.101(nn) (West, Westlaw current with effective legislation through Chapter 5 of the 2021 Regular Session of the Washington Legislature). Further, “practitioner,” as defined by Washington statute, includes, “[a] physician under chapter 18.71 RCW.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Washington. As already discussed, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense or prescribe a controlled substance in Washington. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Washington and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Washington, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, I will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FN1977290 issued to Eric R. Shibley. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby deny any pending application of Eric R. Shibley to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other application of Eric R. Shibley, for additional registration in Washington. This Order is effective April 30, 2021.
On October 15, 2020, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Roozbeh Badii, M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent) of McLean, Virginia. OSC, at 1. The OSC proposed the revocation of Respondent's Certificate of Registration No. FB0526307. It alleged that Respondent is without “authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Virginia, the state in which [Respondent is] registered with the DEA.”
Specifically, the OSC alleged that the Virginia Department of Health Professions (hereinafter, VDHP) issued an Order of Mandatory Suspension on May 12, 2020. OSC, at 2. This Order, according to the OSC, immediately suspended Respondent's Virginia state medical license.
The OSC notified Respondent of the right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement, while waiving the right to a hearing, the procedures for electing each option, and the consequences for failing to elect either option.
By letter dated November 19, 2020, Respondent timely requested a hearing.
The Office of Administrative Law Judges put the matter on the docket and assigned it to Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney II (hereinafter, the Chief ALJ). The Chief ALJ issued an Order and Briefing Schedule dated November 23, 2020. The Government timely complied with the Briefing Schedule by filing a Motion for Summary Disposition (hereinafter, MSD) on December 2, 2020. Order
The Chief ALJ granted the Government MSD finding that “the Government has shown that the Respondent does not currently have authority to practice medicine in Virginia,” and that because “the Respondent does not have authority as a practitioner in Virginia, there is no other fact of consequence for this tribunal to decide in order to determine whether or not he is entitled to hold a [Certificate of Registration].” RD, at 5. The Chief ALJ recommended that Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration be revoked based on his lack of state authority. RD, at 6. By letter dated January 12, 2021, the Chief ALJ certified and transmitted the record to me for final Agency action. In that letter, the Chief ALJ advised that neither party filed exceptions.
I issue this Decision and Order based on the entire record before me. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). I make the following findings of fact.
Respondent is registered with DEA under DEA Certification of Registration number FB0526307 at the registered address of 6193 Adeline Court, McLean, Virginia 22101. MSD, at Exhibit 1. Pursuant to this registration, Respondent is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner.
On May 12, 2020, the VDHP issued an Order of Mandatory Suspension.
According to Virginia's online records, of which I take official notice, Respondent's license is still suspended.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent currently is neither licensed to engage in the practice of medicine in Virginia, the state in which Respondent is registered with the DEA.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the CSA “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, the DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term “practitioner” to mean “a physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which he practices.
Respondent argued that because he holds an active medical license in California, he should be able to transfer his DEA registration in Virginia to that state and avoid revocation. I agree with the Chief ALJ that “as has been long established by Agency precedent, state licensure in a state other than a respondent's COR registration state is irrelevant to a DEA enforcement proceeding.” RD, at 4 (citing
Respondent is no longer currently authorized to dispense controlled substances in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the state in which he is registered. Specifically, the Virginia
Board of Medicine's decision to suspend Respondent's medical license also means that Respondent is currently without authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of Virginia. See,
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Virginia. As already discussed, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FB0526307 issued to Roozbeh Badii. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby deny any pending application of Roozbeh Badii to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other application of Roozbeh Badii, for additional registration in Virginia. This Order is effective April 30, 2021.
Office for Victims of Crime, Department of Justice.
30 Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime, 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 is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until April 30, 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.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved certain collections of information, listed in the Supplementary Information section below, following EBSA's submission of requests for such approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). This notice describes the approved or re-approved information collections and provides their OMB control numbers and current expiration dates as required by the PRA.
G. Christopher Cosby, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-8425 (this is not a toll-free number); Email:
The PRA and its implementing regulations require Federal agencies to display OMB
• OMB Control No. 1210-0064, Class Exemption for Certain Transactions Involving Purchase of Securities where Issuer May Use Proceeds to Reduce or Retire Indebtedness to Parties in Interest (PTE 1980-83). The expiration date for this information collection is January 31, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0119, Petition for Finding under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 3(40). The expiration date for this information collection is January 31, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0123, Notice Requirements of the Health Care Continuation Coverage Provisions. The expiration date for this information collection is January 31, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0130, Statutory Exemption for Cross-Trading of Securities. The expiration date for this information collection is January 31, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0137, Model Employer Children's Health Insurance Program Notice. The expiration date for this information collection January 31, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0145, Plan Asset Transactions Determined by In-House Asset Managers under Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 96-23. The expiration date for this information collection is January 31, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0049, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption for Certain Transactions Between Investment Companies and Employee Benefit Plans (PTE 1977-4). The expiration date for this information collection is February 28, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0128, Plan Asset Transactions Determined by Independent Qualified Professional Asset Managers under Prohibited Transaction Exemption 1984-14. The expiration date for this information collection is February 28, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0053, Employee Benefit Plan Claims Procedure Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The expiration date for this information collection is April 30, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0063, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1992-6: Sale of Individual Life Insurance or Annuity Contracts by a Plan. The expiration date for this information collection is June 30, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0149, Notice to Employees of Coverage Options Under Fair Labor Standards Act Section 18B. The expiration date for this information collection is June 30, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0161, EBSA Participant Assistance Program Customer Survey. The expiration date for this information collection is June 30, 2023;
• OMB Control No. 1210-0040, Employee Retirement Income Security Act Summary Annual Report Requirement. The expiration date for this information collection is July 31, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0076, Loans to Plan Participants and Beneficiaries Who Are Parties In Interest With Respect to The Plan Regulation. The expiration date for this information collection is July 31, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0094, Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1985-68 to Permit Employee Benefit Plans to Invest in Customer Notes of Employers. The expiration date for this information collection is July 31, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0039, Summary Plan Description Requirements Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. The expiration date for this information collection is August 31, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0090, Disclosures for Participant Directed Individual Account Plans. The expiration date for this information collection is August 31, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0121, Consent to Receive Employee Benefit Plan Disclosures Electronically. The expiration date for this information collection is August 31, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0126, Defined Benefit Plan Annual Funding Notice. The expiration date for this information collection is August 31, 2023.
• OMB Control No. 1210-0132, Default Investment Alternatives under Participant Directed Individual Account Plans. The expiration date for this information collection is August 31, 2023.
EBSA also notifies the public that the following new information collection has been approved by OMB following EBSA's submission of an ICR:
• OMB Control No. 1210-0164, Registration Requirements to Serve as a Pooled Plan Provider to Pooled Employer Plans. The expiration date for this information collection is November 30, 2023.
The PRA provides that 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. Publication of this notice satisfies this requirement with respect to the above-listed information collections, as provided in 5 CFR 1320.5(b)(2)(C).
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (the Department), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed 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. The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) is soliciting comments on the proposed extension of the information collection requests (ICRs) contained in the documents described below. A copy of the ICRs may be obtained by contacting the office listed in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office shown in the Addresses section on or before June 1, 2021.
G. Christopher Cosby, Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N- 5718, Washington, DC 20210,
This notice requests public comment on the
This information collection relates to the final rule under ERISA section 408(b)(2), which was published in the
Regulation section 29 CFR 2550.401(c)-1 imposes specific requirements on insurers that are parties to Transition Policies in order to ensure that the fiduciaries acting on behalf of plans have adequate information and understanding of how the Transition Policies work. This information collection requires that an insurer that issues and maintains a Transition Policy to or for the benefit of an employee benefit plan must disclose to the plan fiduciary, initially upon issuance of the policy and on an annual basis, to the extent that the policy is not a guaranteed benefit policy: (1) The methods by which income and expenses of the insurer's general account are allocated to the policy, the actual annual return to the plan, and other pertinent information; (2) the extent to which alternative arrangements supported by the assets of the insurer's separate accounts are available; (3) any rights under the policy to transfer funds to a separate account and the terms governing such right; and (4) the extent to which support by assets of the insurer's separate accounts might pose differing risks to the plan. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0114. The current approval is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2021.
This information collection relates to the ERISA Filing Acceptance System 2 (EFAST-2), which is designed to simplify and expedite the receipt and processing of the Form 5500 by relying on internet-based forms and electronic filing technologies. In order to file electronically, employee benefit plan Filing authors, Schedule authors, Filing signers, Form 5500 transmitters, and entities developing software to complete and/or transmit the Form 5500 are required to register for EFAST-2 credentials through the EFAST2 website. The information requested for registration includes: Applicant type (Filing Author, Filing Signer, Schedule Author, Transmitter, or software developer); mailing address; fax number (optional); email address; company name, contact person; and daytime telephone number. Registrants must also provide an answer to a challenge question (“What is your date of birth?” or “Where is your place of birth?”), which enables users to retrieve forgotten credentials. In addition, registrants must accept a Privacy Agreement; PIN Agreement; and, under penalty of perjury, a Signature Agreement. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0117. The current approval is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2021.
The regulations contain the following collections of information:
(1) Each organization seeking to be treated as an eligible organization to use the optional accommodation process offered under the regulation must either notify an issuer or third party administrator using the EBSA Form 700 method of self-certification or provide notice to HHS of its religious or moral objection to coverage of all or a subset of contraceptive services.
(2) A health insurance issuer or third party administrator providing or arranging separate payments for contraceptive services for participants and beneficiaries in insured plans (or student enrollees and covered dependents in student health insurance coverage) of eligible organizations is required to provide a written notice to plan participants and beneficiaries (or student enrollees and covered dependents) informing them of the availability of such payments. The notice must be separate from but, contemporaneous with (to the extent possible) any application materials distributed in connection with enrollment (or re-enrollment) in group or student coverage of the eligible organization in any plan year to which the accommodation is to apply and will be provided annually. To satisfy the notice requirement, issuers may, but are not required to, use the model language set forth previously or substantially similar language.
(3) An eligible organization may also revoke its use of the accommodation process and must provide participants and beneficiaries written notice of such revocation as soon as possible.
The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0150. The current approval is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2021.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA), requires the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to conduct reallotment of certain WIOA formula allotted funds based on ETA 9130 financial reports submitted by states as of the end of the prior Program Year (PY). This notice publishes the Dislocated Worker PY 2020 funds for recapture by state and the amount to be reallotted to eligible states.
This notice is effective March 31, 2021.
Ms. Kimberly Vitelli, Administrator, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration, Room C-4510, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC Telephone (202) 693-3980 (this is not a toll-free number) or fax (202) 693-3981.
In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Appropriations Act, Congress appropriated WIOA PY 2020 funds in two portions: (1) Funds available for obligation July 1, 2020 (
WIOA regulations at 20 CFR 683.135 describe the procedures the Secretary uses for recapture and reallotment of funds. ETA will not recapture any PY 2020 funds for the Adult and Youth programs because there is no state where PY 2019 unobligated funds exceeds the statutory requirements of 20 percent of state allotted funds. However, for the Dislocated Worker program, Kentucky, Nevada, Puerto Rico, and West Virginia had unobligated PY 2019 funds in excess of 20 percent of their allotments. Therefore, ETA will recapture a total of $4,993,277 from PY 2020 funding from Kentucky, Nevada, Puerto Rico, and West Virginia, and reallot those funds to the remaining eligible states, as required by WIOA Section 132(c).
ETA will issue a Notice of Award to the states to reflect the recapture and reallotment of these funds. The adjustment of funds will be made to the FY 2021 advance portion of the PY 2020 allotments, which ETA issued in October 2020. The attached tables display the net changes to PY 2020 formula allotments.
WIOA and its implementing regulations do not provide specific requirements by which states must distribute realloted funds, so states have flexibility to determine the methodology used. For any state subject to recapture
As mentioned, the recapture/reallotment adjustments will be made to the FY 2021 advance portion of the PY 2020 allotment. Therefore, for reporting purposes, states must reflect the recapture/reallotment amount (decrease or increase) in the “Total Federal Funds Authorized” line of any affected FY 2021 ETA 9130 financial reports (State Dislocated Worker Activities, Statewide Rapid Response, Local Dislocated Worker Activities) in a manner consistent with the method of distribution of these amounts to state and local areas used by the state. The state must include an explanation of the adjustment in the remarks section of the adjusted reports.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Advisory Council was established as a discretionary advisory committee on July 14, 2016. Its charter was renewed for a second term on July 11, 2018 and third term on July 8, 2020. The MCC Advisory Council serves MCC solely in an advisory capacity and provides insight regarding innovations in infrastructure, technology and sustainability; perceived risks and opportunities in MCC partner countries;
Tuesday, April 13, 2021, from 10:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will be held via conference call.
Jennifer Rimbach, 202.521.3932,
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 proposed and/or continuing information collections.
Comments are due by June 1, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice to
Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 60-day Review-Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Claire Little, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JF0000, Washington, DC 20546, 202-358-2373 or email
The proposed information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations; provide an early warning of issues with service; or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness; appropriateness; accuracy of information; courtesy; efficiency of service delivery; and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
The collections are voluntary;
The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
Information gathered will only be used internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the Agency;
Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does 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 to 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.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy
Annual Responses: 80,000.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Science Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Committee reports to the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Wednesday, April 14, 2021, 12:30-5:00 p.m.; and Thursday, April 15, 2021, 1:00-5:00 p.m.; Eastern Time.
Ms. KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355 or
This meeting will be open to the public via Webex and telephonically. Webex connectivity information for each day is provided below. For audio, when you join the Webex event, you may use your computer or provide your phone number to receive a call back, otherwise, call the U.S. toll conference number listed for each day.
On Wednesday, April 14, the event address for attendees is:
On Thursday, April 15, the event address for attendees is:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates due to the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
Notice; correction.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) published a document in the
Please contact Crystal Robinson,
In the
Notice is hereby given in accordance with Public Law 92-463 that the Actuarial Advisory Committee will hold a virtual meeting on April 21, 2021, at 12:30 p.m. (Central Daylight Time), on the conduct of the 28th Actuarial Valuation of the Railroad Retirement System. The agenda for this meeting will include a discussion of the assumptions to be used in the 28th Actuarial Valuation. A report containing recommended assumptions and the experience on which the recommendations are based will have been sent by the Chief Actuary to the Committee before the meeting.
The meeting will be open to the public. Persons wishing to submit written statements, make oral presentations, or attend the meeting should address their communications or notices to Patricia Pruitt (
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to adopt new Section 1)c), Excessive Quoting Fee.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt new Section 1)c), Excessive Quoting Fee.
The Exchange initially filed its proposal to adopt the Excessive Quoting Fee on February 8, 2021.
The Exchange recently completed a significant upgrade to its System's
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt new Section 1)c), Excessive Quoting Fee. The Exchange proposes to assess an Excessive Quoting Fee of $10,000 per day to any Market Maker
The purpose of this proposal is to ensure that Market Makers do not over utilize the Exchange's System by sending excessive quotes to the Exchange, to the detriment of all other Members of the Exchange. Market Makers that send an excessive number of quotes to the Exchange on any particular day have the potential residual effect of exhausting System resources, bandwidth, and capacity. In turn, this may create latency and impact other Members' and non-Members' ability to send messages to the Exchange and receive timely executions.
The Exchange's high performance network provides unparalleled system throughput and the capacity to handle approximately 38 million messages per second. On an average day, the Exchange handles over approximately 11 billion total messages. These billions of messages per day consume the Exchange's resources, particularly storage capabilities. The combination of (i) Member quoting behavior, (ii) increased volatility in the marketplace, and (iii) increased number of options products quoted on the Exchange has a significant impact on the total number of quotes sent each trading day, resulting in additional storage capacity. The Exchange believes this proposal will reduce the potential for market participants to engage in excessive quoting behavior that would require the Exchange to increase its storage capacity and will encourage quotes to be made in good faith.
Recognizing that orders and executions often occur in large numbers, the purpose of this proposal is to focus on activity that is truly disproportionate while fairly allocating costs. The proposal contemplates that a Market Maker would have to exceed the high threshold of 2.5 billion inbound quotes before that Market Maker would be charged the proposed fee on that particular trading day. The Exchange
The Exchange believes that this concept is not new or novel.
The Exchange believes adopting the proposed fee will protect the integrity of the MIAX Emerald market and benefit all market participants of MIAX Emerald by ensuring that the Exchange's System is not overloaded from excessive quotes being sent to it each day. The Exchange notes that it will provide Market Makers with daily reports, free of charge, which will detail their quoting activity in order for those firms to be fully aware of the number of quotes they are sending to the Exchange. This will allow firms to ensure that their quoting behavior does not approach the proposed 2.5 billion inbound quote limit.
The Exchange notes that since the launch of MIAX Emerald in March of 2019, no Market Maker has reached approximately more than two thirds of the proposed 2.5 billion inbound quote limit threshold during peak trading days, including days with high volatility in the marketplace. Accordingly, the Exchange does not anticipate that any Market Maker will exceed the proposed 2.5 billion inbound quote limit and become subject to the proposed fee. The Exchange notes that this proposal is not intended to raise revenue for the Exchange; rather, it is intended to ensure that Market Makers are using their quoting methodologies in the most efficient manner possible in light of the Exchange's highly deterministic and transparent infrastructure.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that its proposal is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers because it will encourage efficient utilization of the Exchange's highly deterministic and transparent network architecture. The Exchange believes that unfettered usage of System capacity and network resource consumption can have a detrimental effect on all market participants who are potentially compelled to send quote messages to the Exchange on an unlimited basis, to the detriment of all other market participants who access and use the Exchange. Further, the proposed fee and message limit will apply equally to all Market Makers who send quotes to the Exchange in excess of 2.5 billion inbound quotes on any particular trading day.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory due to the substantial quote limit that the proposal contemplates before the proposed fee kicks in, as well as the normal Market Maker quote traffic that the Exchange has experienced since it began operations in March of 2019. In addition, the Exchange believes that by excluding messages that are generated from a mass purge message sent to the Exchange from the calculation of the total quotes for the proposed fee is not unfairly discriminatory because it will keep from disadvantaging firms that choose to use mass purges on a regular basis for risk management reasons. The Exchange notes that since the launch of MIAX Emerald in March of 2019, no Market Maker has reached approximately more than two-thirds of the proposed 2.5 billion inbound quote limit threshold during peak trading days, including days with high volatility in the marketplace. The Exchange does not anticipate that any Market Maker will exceed the proposed 2.5 billion inbound quote limit and become subject to the proposed fee.
The Exchange further believes that its proposal is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it is not intended to raise revenue for the Exchange; rather, it is intended to ensure that Market Makers are using their quoting methodologies in the most efficient manner possible in light of the Exchange's highly deterministic and transparent infrastructure. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee and quote limit is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because this proposal will reduce the potential for market participants to engage in excessive quoting behavior that would require the Exchange to increase its storage capacity and will encourage quotes to be made in good faith. The Exchange notes that other exchanges have implemented similar fees and capacity type-limits in order to deter their firms from over-utilizing their trading systems and exhausting system resources, while encouraging the efficient usage of system resources.
The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed Excessive Quoting Fee both appropriately reflects the benefits to different firms of being able to send quotes into the Exchange's trading System, and facilitates the Commission's goal of ensuring that critical market infrastructure has “levels of capacity, integrity, resiliency, availability, and security adequate to maintain their operational capability and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.”
The Exchange will also review the quoting behavior of all firms on a regular basis to ensure that the inbound quote limit remains significantly higher than the average firm quoting behavior, while taking into account varying market conditions. The Exchange will regularly monitor prevailing market conditions to ensure that the inbound quote limit is sufficiently flexible and could not inadvertently result in higher than anticipated fees being charged to firms that are providing liquidity in volatile, high volume markets. The Exchange does not want to discourage such liquidity provision and believes that it should be able to adjust the inbound quote limit on a monthly basis if need be.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal does not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants because the proposed fee and message limit will apply equally to all Market Makers who send quotes to the Exchange in excess of 2.5 billion inbound quotes on any particular trading day. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee neither favors nor penalizes one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition. Rather, the proposal seeks to benefit all market participants by encouraging the efficient utilization of the Exchange's highly deterministic and transparent network architecture. Further, the Exchange notes that since the launch of MIAX Emerald in March of 2019, no Market Maker has reached approximately more than two-thirds of the proposed 2.5 billion inbound quote limit threshold during peak trading days, including days with high volatility in the marketplace. Accordingly, the Exchange does not anticipate that any Market Maker will exceed the proposed 2.5 billion inbound quote limit and become subject to the proposed fee. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed Excessive Quoting Fee does not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition.
The Exchange believes the proposal does not place an undue burden on competition on other self-regulatory organizations that is not necessary or appropriate because of the availability of numerous substitute options exchanges. There are 15 other options exchanges where market participants can become members and send quotes if they deem the 2.5 billion inbound quote limit to be too restrictive for their quoting behavior. In addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition as the proposal does not address any competitive issues; rather, it is intended to protect all market participants of MIAX Emerald by ensuring that the Exchange's System is not overloaded from excessive quotes being sent to it each day.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to extend the waiver of equipment and related service charges and trading license fees for NYSE Trading Floor-based member organizations through the earlier of the first full month of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities to Floor personnel or June 2021. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective April 1, 2021. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to extend the waiver of equipment and related service charges and trading license fees for NYSE Trading Floor-based member organizations through the earlier of the first full month of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities to Floor personnel or June 2021.
As proposed, the Exchange would continue to waive 50% of the Telephone System charges and Service Charges (except for the internet Equipment Monthly Hosting Fee) and trading license fees for member organizations that meet the waiver criteria set forth in footnotes 11 and 15 of the Price List, respectively, commencing January 1, 2021 through the earlier of the first full month of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities to Floor personnel or June 2021.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective April 1, 2021.
Beginning in March 2020 and continuing into 2021, in order to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) through social distancing measures, significant limitations were placed on large gatherings throughout the country. As a result, on March 18, 2020, the Exchange determined that beginning March 23, 2020, the physical Trading Floor facilities located at 11 Wall Street in New York City would close and that the Exchange would move, on a temporary basis, to fully electronic trading.
On May 14, 2020, the Exchange announced that on May 26, 2020 trading operations on the Trading Floor would resume on a limited basis to a subset of Floor brokers, subject to health and safety measures designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
In response to the unprecedented events surrounding the spread of COVID-19 in 2020, the Exchange waived certain equipment and related service charges and trading license fees for NYSE Trading Floor-based member organizations through March 2021. Specifically, the Exchange extended the waiver of 50% of the Annual Telephone Line Charge of $400 per phone number; the $129 fee for a single line phone, jack, and data jack; the related service charges ($161.25 to install single jack (voice or data); $107.50 to relocate a jack; $53.75 to remove a jack; $107.50 to install voice or data line; $53.75 to disconnect data line; $53.75 to change a phone line subscriber; and miscellaneous telephone charges billed at $106 per hour in 15 minute increments); and the monthly portion of all applicable annual fees through March 2021 for member organizations that
• meet the current requirements of having at least one trading license, a physical trading Floor presence and Floor broker executions accounting for 40% or more of the member organization's combined adding, taking, and auction volumes during March 1 to March 20, 2020 or, if not a member organization during March 1 to March 20, 2020, based on the member organization's combined adding, taking, and auction volumes during its first month as a member organization on or after May 26, 2020, and
• are unable to operate at more than 50% of their March 2020 on-Floor staffing levels or, for member organizations that began Floor operations after March 2020, are unable to operate at more than 50% of their Exchange-approved on-Floor staffing levels, both excluding part-time Floor brokers known as “flex brokers” (hereinafter, “Qualifying Firms”).
Because the Trading Floor continues to operate with reduced capacity, and in order to further reduce costs for member organizations with a Trading Floor presence, the Exchange proposes to extend the fee waiver for Qualifying Firms through the earlier of the first full month of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities to Floor personnel or June 2021. The proposed fee change is designed to reduce monthly costs for all Qualifying Firms whose operations continue to be disrupted even though the Trading Floor has partially reopened. The Exchange does not propose any substantive changes to the current waiver requirements set forth in footnotes 11 and 15 of the Price List. The Exchange believes that all Qualifying Firms would benefit from the proposed fee change.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered a “fragmented” market structure where trading in a single stock can occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized that “such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in that stock.”
The proposed extension of the waiver of equipment and related service fees and the applicable monthly trading license fee for Qualified Firms through the earlier of the first full month of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities to Floor personnel or June 2021 is reasonable in light of the continued partial closure of the NYSE Trading Floor as a result of spread of COVID-19. The proposed change is reasonable because it would extend reduction of monthly costs for all Qualifying Firms whose operations have been disrupted despite the fact that the Trading Floor has partially reopened because of the social distancing requirements and/or other health concerns related to resuming operation on the Trading Floor. In reducing this monthly financial burden, the proposed change would allow Qualifying Firms that that are unable to operate at more than 50% of their March 2020 or Exchange-approved on-Floor staffing levels to reallocate funds to assist with the cost of shifting and maintaining their prior fully-staffed on-Floor operations to off-Floor and recoup losses resulting from the partial reopening of the Trading Floor.
The Exchange believes the proposed extension of the waiver of equipment and related service fees and the applicable monthly trading license fee for Qualified Members for the proposed time period is an equitable allocation of fees. The proposed waivers apply to all Trading Floor-based firms meeting specific requirements during the specified period that the Trading Floor remains partially open. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable allocation of its fees and credits as it continues the previous fee waiver for Qualifying Firms, which affects fees charged only to Floor participants and does not apply to participants that conduct business off-Floor. The Exchange believes it is an equitable allocation of fees and credits to extend the fee waiver for Qualifying Firms because such firms have no more than half of their Floor staff (as measured by either the March 2020 or Exchange-approved) levels, and this reduction in staffing levels on the Trading Floor impacts the speed, volume and efficiency with which these firms can operate, to their financial detriment.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed continuation of the fee waiver would affect all similarly situated market participants on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange is not proposing to waive the Trading Floor-related fees indefinitely, but rather during the specified period during which the Trading Floor is not fully open. As noted, the proposed fee
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend various rules in Options 3.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend various rules in Options 3. The proposed changes consist of conforming existing rules to current System technology, amending rule text to add greater detail on how certain Exchange functionality operate today. Furthermore, the proposed changes are intended to harmonize the Exchange's rules where appropriate with the rules of the Exchange's affiliated options markets, including by using consistent language to describe identical functionality.
In September 2019, the Exchange amended its regular allocation rule in Options 7, Section 10 (Priority of Quotes and Orders) to make non-substantive changes, among other changes, to replace references to Professional interest with non-Priority Customer interest.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to make universal changes in its Facilitation and Solicitation rules
The Exchange proposes minor changes to the current descriptions of the Block execution and allocation process in Options 3, Section 11(a). As discussed below, the proposed Block changes are non-substantive in nature, and are intended to harmonize with the Block rule on its affiliated market, BX Options (“BX”) in order to ensure rule consistency between the Exchange and its affiliate offering identical functionality.
First, the Exchange proposes to add “up to the size of the block order” at the end of subsection (a)(2)(i). As amended, the rule will provide that bids (offers) on the Exchange at the time the block order is time the block order is executed
Second, the Exchange proposes a non-substantive change in the first sentence of subsection (a)(2)(ii) to replace “first and in time priority” with “first in price time priority.” As amended, the rule will provide that at the block execution price, Priority Customer Orders and Priority Customer Responses will be executed
The following Responses are received:
The block execution price would be $1.40 (
As shown above, Priority Customer Response 3 would be executed in full since it is priced better than the block execution price and there is sufficient size to execute Response 3 against the block order, while Priority Customer Responses 1 and 2, which are priced at the block execution price, would participate in price time priority—
The Exchange proposes a number of changes to its Facilitation rule, none of which will change the current operation of this technology offering.
In Options 3, Section 11(b), the Exchange proposes to add new subsection (b)(1),
Assume the following market:
No Responses are received.
The Facilitation order executes with resting 50 lot quote @2. In this instance, the Facilitation order is able to begin crossed with the contra side Exchange BBO because in execution, the resting 50 lot quote @2 is able to provide price improvement to the facilitation order.
In renumbered subsection (b)(3), the Exchange proposes to replace the words “must not exceed” with “will only be considered up to.” This change more accurately describes current behavior in that the System will cap Responses to the size of the auction for purposes of allocation methodology.
In renumbered subsections (b)(4)(ii) and (b)(4)(iii), the Exchange proposes to amend the rule to provide that the facilitating Member will be allocated up to forty percent (40%) (or such lower percentage requested by the Member) of the original size of the facilitation order. If the Member requests a lower allocation percentage, the contra-side order would receive an allocation consistent with the percentage requested by the Member. Regardless of the Member's request, the contra-side order would still be responsible for executing up to the full size of the agency order if there is not enough interest to execute the agency order at a particular price.
The Exchange also proposes to more accurately describe Facilitation's auto-match functionality, which provides an enhanced price improvement opportunity for the agency order by permitting the contra-side order to further participate in the cross by auto-matching the price and size of competing interest providing price improvement from other market participants. The Exchange adopted Facilitation (and its auto-match functionality) as part of its application to be registered as a national securities exchange.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to add at the end of Supplementary Material .01 to Options 3, Section 11 that any solicited contra orders entered by Members into the Facilitation Mechanism to trade against Agency Orders may not be for the account of an Exchange Market Maker that is assigned to the options class.
The Exchange proposes the below changes to its Solicitation rule, none of which will change the current operation of this technology offering.
In Options 3, Section 11(d), the Exchange proposes to add new subsection (d)(1),
Assume the following market:
The Solicitation order is rejected upon entry for being crossed with the NBBO on the contra side. In contrast to Example 2 above for Facilitation, the Solicitation order in this instance is not able to begin crossed with the contra side Exchange BBO because of the all-or-none contingency of the Solicitation order.
The Exchange proposes a number of changes to the PIM rule, none of which will change the current operation of this technology offering. As noted above, many of these modifications are similar to the changes proposed for Facilitation.
The Exchange proposes in Options 3, Section 13(b)(2) to delete “national best bid or offer” as NBBO is already defined in subsection (b)(1) above. The Exchange proposes in subsection (c)(2) to provide that responses in the PIM (
In subsection (d)(3), which describes how allocation and execution takes place in PIM, the Exchange proposes that the Counter-Side Order will be allocated the greater of one contract or 40%
The Exchange also proposes to more accurately describe PIM's auto-match functionality in a similar manner as Facilitation's auto-match functionality, as discussed above. In this instance, the Exchange proposes to amend the third sentence of subsection (d)(3) to provide: “If a Member elects to auto-match, the Counter-Side Order will be allocated the aggregate size of all competing quotes, orders, and Responses at each price point up to the specified limit price if a limit is specified, until a price point is reached where the balance of the order can be fully executed.” Similar to the proposed amendments to Facilitation's auto-match, the Exchange believes that the proposed language for PIM's auto-match more clearly explains how the functionality works today, and better aligns with how this feature is described in the Auto-Match Filing.
The Exchange further proposes technical amendments in subsection (d)(3) to replace all instances of “Counter-Side order” as “Counter-Side Order” to use the correct terminology.
The Exchange proposes to amend its anti-internalization (“AIQ”) rule in Options 3, Section 15(a)(3)(A). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add that AIQ does not apply during the opening process or reopening process following a trading halt pursuant to Options 3, Section 8 to provide more specificity on how this functionality currently operates. The Exchange notes that the same procedures used during the opening process are used to reopen an option series after a trading halt, and therefore proposes to specify that AIQ will not apply during
The Exchange proposes two technical changes in the Supplementary Material to Options 3, Section 11. First, the Exchange proposes in Supplementary Material .03 to update an incorrect cross-cite from Options 3, Section 22(d) to Section 22(b), which limits principal transactions. Second, the Exchange proposes in Supplementary Material .05 to update the reference to “Block Mechanism” to “Block Order Mechanism” to use the correct terminology.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to retitle General 4 (currently titled “Regulation”) to “Registration Requirements” to harmonize its General Rule titles with that of its affiliates The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and Nasdaq BX, Inc.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the protection of investors and public interest as all of the proposed changes will increase transparency around how various existing Exchange mechanisms work today. As such, no System changes to existing functionality are being made pursuant to this proposal. Rather, this proposal is designed to reduce any potential investor confusion as to the features and applicability of certain functionality presently available on the Exchange.
Furthermore, the proposed changes seek to provide greater harmonization between the rules of the Exchange and its affiliates.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed universal changes to replace all instances of Professional interest with non-Priority Customer interest throughout the Exchange's auction allocation rules will add greater consistency within the Exchange's rules. As discussed above, the Exchange previously made the same modifications within its standard allocation rule in Options 7, Section 10, so the proposed changes will promote more consistent terminology in the rules and make them easier for market participants to navigate and comprehend. The Exchange also believes that using the term “non-Priority Customer” reduces any potential confusion regarding any reference to Professional Orders or Professional Customer orders. In addition, the Exchange believes that clearly delineating between orders and Reponses of the same capacity in the Facilitation and Solicitation rules will bring clarity and transparency around how allocation takes place in those auction mechanisms today. The Exchange is simply adding more granularity within its rules and specifying the capacity of such order or Response. As noted above, the Exchange is not changing the current allocation methodology, and auction orders and Responses of the same capacity do not get treated differently for allocation purposes today.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Block rule are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as the modifications will more accurately reflect the handling of auctions in Block, specifically as it relates to execution and allocation. The proposed changes will specify that better priced interest entered into Block gets executed in full only if there is sufficient size to execute against such interest, and that Priority Customer interest gets executed first in price time priority. This specificity will be helpful to market participants utilizing Block and provide greater certainty as to how their Block orders will be executed and allocated. The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes will continue to ensure a fair and orderly market by maintaining and protecting the priority of Priority Customer orders, while still affording the opportunity for all market participants to seek liquidity and potential price improvement during each Block auction commenced on the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange is not proposing any changes to the current execution or allocation methodology but believes that the changes will promote consistency with the rulebook of its affiliated exchange BX, which offers identical functionality.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that specifying the entry checks for Facilitation and Solicitation is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest by bringing more transparency around how the entry checks operate today. The Exchange is not amending the current Facilitation and Solicitation entry checks; rather, the proposed changes are simply intended to add a more robust description of current System behavior in the Exchange's rules. The Exchange also believes it is appropriate to require that the Facilitation order be entered at an improved price if there is a Priority Customer order on the same side Exchange best bid or offer as the agency order. The Exchange believes this will ensure a fair and orderly market by maintaining priority of orders and quotes and protecting Priority Customer orders, while still affording the opportunity to seek liquidity and for potential price improvement during each Facilitation auction commenced on the Exchange. For the same reasons, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to require that the Solicitation order be entered at an improved price if there is a Priority Customer order on the Exchange best bid or offer.
The proposed changes to replace “must not exceed” with “will only be considered up to” in the Facilitation and PIM rules are intended to more accurately describe that the System will cap the size of Responses to the size of the agency order for purposes of allocation. The Exchange is not amending current System behavior; rather, the modifications will more clearly articulate the handling of Responses by the System.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to specify in the Facilitation and PIM rules that an initiating Member may elect to receive a percentage allocation lower than 40% is consistent with the Act. This feature provides an initiating Member that submits an order into Facilitation or PIM with the flexibility to configure its allocation
With respect to the proposed changes to the Facilitation and PIM auto-match feature, the Exchange is amending the current rule text so that it more accurately explains how the Exchange will allocate an order designated for auto-match today. As discussed above, the Exchange is not making any substantive changes to the allocation procedure itself; rather the proposed changes are intended to better align how this feature is described in the Auto-Match Filing.
The Exchange believes its proposal to provide that AIQ will not apply during an Opening Process (
The Exchange further believes that the technical changes it is proposing throughout Options 3 are non-substantive changes intended to enhance the accuracy of the Exchange's Rulebook, which will alleviate potential confusion as to the applicability of its rules. As discussed above, these changes consist of updating cross-cites and using correct terminology. Lastly, the Exchange believes that the harmonizing change to retitle General 4, as discussed above, will serve to further harmonize its Rule titling with that of its affiliates, thereby promoting efficiency and conformity of its processes with those of its affiliated exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As indicated above, no System changes to existing functionality are being made pursuant to this proposal; rather, this proposal is designed to reduce any potential investor confusion as to the features and applicability of certain functionality presently available on the Exchange. Therefore, the proposed changes are designed to enhance clarity and consistency in the Exchange's Rulebook.
Furthermore, many of the proposed changes seek to provide greater harmonization between the rules of the Exchange and its affiliates, and therefore promotes fair competition among the options exchanges. In particular, the proposed changes discussed above for Block and AIQ are based on BX rules governing identical functionality.
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
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend various rules in Options 3.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend various rules in Options 3. The proposed changes consist of conforming existing rules to current System technology, amending rule text to add greater detail on how certain Exchange functionality operate today. Furthermore, the proposed changes are intended to harmonize the Exchange's rules where appropriate with the rules of the Exchange's affiliated options markets, including by using consistent language to describe identical functionality.
In September 2019, the Exchange amended its regular allocation rule in Options 7, Section 10 (Priority of Quotes and Orders) to make non-substantive changes, among other changes, to replace references to Professional interest with non-Priority Customer interest.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to make universal changes in its Facilitation and Solicitation rules
The Exchange proposes minor changes to the current descriptions of the Block execution and allocation process in Options 3, Section 11(a). As discussed below, the proposed Block changes are non-substantive in nature, and are intended to harmonize with the Block rule on its affiliated market, BX Options (“BX”) in order to ensure rule consistency between the Exchange and its affiliate offering identical functionality.
First, the Exchange proposes to add “up to the size of the block order” at the end of subsection (a)(2)(i). As amended, the rule will provide that bids (offers) on the Exchange at the time the block order is time the block order is executed that are priced higher (lower) than the block execution price, as well as Responses that are priced higher (lower) than the block execution price, will be executed in full at the block execution price
Second, the Exchange proposes a non-substantive change in the first sentence of subsection (a)(2)(ii) to replace “first and in time priority” with “first in price time priority.” As amended, the rule will provide that at the block execution price, Priority Customer Orders and Priority Customer Responses will be executed
The following Responses are received:
The block execution price would be $1.40 (
As shown above, Priority Customer Response 3 would be executed in full since it is priced better than the block execution price and there is sufficient size to execute Response 3 against the block order, while Priority Customer Responses 1 and 2, which are priced at the block execution price, would participate in price time priority—
The Exchange proposes a number of changes to its Facilitation rule, none of which will change the current operation of this technology offering. Many of the proposed changes are intended to align the simple Facilitation rule in Options 3, Section 11(b) with the complex Facilitation rule in Options 3, Section 11(c) where relevant. In May 2019, the Exchange received SEC approval to adopt complex order functionality, which included complex auction mechanisms like complex Facilitation.
In Options 3, Section 11(b), the Exchange proposes to add new subsection (b)(1),
Assume the following market:
No Responses are received.
The Facilitation order executes with resting 50 lot quote @2. In this instance, the Facilitation order is able to begin crossed with the contra side Exchange BBO because in execution, the resting 50 lot quote @2 is able to provide price improvement to the facilitation order.
In renumbered subsection (b)(3), the Exchange proposes to replace the words “must not exceed” with “will only be considered up to” in order to align with identical language in the complex Facilitation rule.
In renumbered subsections (b)(4)(ii) and (b)(4)(iii), the Exchange proposes to amend the rule to provide that the facilitating Member will be allocated up to forty percent (40%) (or such lower percentage requested by the Member) of the original size of the facilitation order. If the Member requests a lower allocation percentage, the contra-side order would receive an allocation consistent with the percentage requested by the Member. Regardless of the Member's request, the contra-side order would still be responsible for executing up to the full size of the agency order if there is not enough interest to execute the agency order at a particular price. Similar language indicating that the Member may request a lower allocation percentage than 40% is currently included in the complex Facilitation rule, which operate in the same way as the simple Facilitation in this manner.
The Exchange also proposes to more accurately describe Facilitation's auto-match functionality, which provides an enhanced price improvement opportunity for the agency order by permitting the contra-side order to further participate in the cross by auto-matching the price and size of competing interest providing price improvement from other market participants. The Exchange adopted Facilitation (and its auto-match functionality) as part of its application to be registered as a national securities exchange.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to add at the end of Supplementary Material .01 to Options 3, Section 11 that any solicited contra orders entered by Members into the Facilitation Mechanism to trade against Agency Orders may not be for the account of an Exchange Market Maker that is assigned to the options class.
The Exchange proposes the below changes to its Solicitation rule, none of which will change the current operation of this technology offering.
In Options 3, Section 11(d), the Exchange proposes to add new subsection (d)(1),
Assume the following market:
The Solicitation order is rejected upon entry for being crossed with the NBBO on the contra side. In contrast to Example 2 above for Facilitation, the Solicitation order in this instance is not able to begin crossed with the contra side Exchange BBO because of the all-or-none contingency of the Solicitation order.
The Exchange proposes a number of changes to the PIM rule, none of which will change the current operation of this technology offering. As noted above, many of these modifications are similar to the changes proposed for Facilitation.
The Exchange proposes in Options 3, Section 13(b)(2) to delete “national best bid or offer” as NBBO is already defined in subsection (b)(1) above. The Exchange proposes in subsection (c)(2) to provide that responses in the PIM (
In subsection (d)(3), which describes how allocation and execution takes place in simple PIM, the Exchange proposes that the Counter-Side Order will be allocated the greater of one contract or 40%
The Exchange also proposes to more accurately describe PIM's auto-match functionality in a similar manner as Facilitation's auto-match functionality, as discussed above. In this instance, the Exchange proposes to amend the third sentence of subsection (d)(3) to provide: “If a Member elects to auto-match, the Counter-Side Order will be allocated the aggregate size of all competing quotes, orders, and Responses at each price point up to the specified limit price if a limit is specified, until a price point is reached where the balance of the order can be fully executed.” Similar to the proposed amendments to simple Facilitation's auto-match, the Exchange believes that the proposed language for simple PIM's auto-match more clearly explains how the functionality works today, and better aligns with how this feature is described in the Auto-Match Filing. For greater consistency within its Rulebook, the Exchange will also make the same changes in the complex PIM auto-match rule in Options 3, Section 13(e)(5)(iii).
The Exchange further proposes technical amendments in subsection (d)(3) to replace all instances of “Counter-Side order” as “Counter-Side Order” to use the correct terminology. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to provide in Supplementary Material .04 to Options 3, Section 13 that PIMs will not queue or overlap in any manner,
The Exchange proposes a non-substantive change to amend the TVA rule in Supplementary Material .03 to Options 3, Section 14 to add a cross-cite to the complex PIM rule in Options 3, Section 13, which was inadvertently omitted when the Exchange relocated the complex auctions rules in a prior filing.
TVA is a functionality that allows complex orders to trade outside of their expected notional trade amount by a specified amount. The amount of TVA permitted may be determined by the Member, or a default value determined by the Exchange and announced to Members.
The Exchange proposes to amend its anti-internalization (“AIQ”) rule in Options 3, Section 15(a)(3)(A). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add that AIQ does not apply during the opening process or reopening process following a trading halt pursuant to Options 3, Section 8 to provide more specificity on how this functionality currently operates. The Exchange notes that the same procedures used during the opening process are used to reopen an option series after a trading halt, and therefore proposes to specify that AIQ will not apply during
The Exchange proposes two technical changes in the Supplementary Material to Options 3, Section 11. First, the Exchange proposes in Supplementary Material .03 to update an incorrect cross-cite from Options 3, Section 22(d) to Section 22(b), which limits principal transactions. Second, the Exchange proposes in Supplementary Material .05 to update the reference to “Block Mechanism” to “Block Order Mechanism” to use the correct terminology.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes some harmonizing changes throughout its Rulebook to align with the rule numbering and titles with that of its affiliates. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a new Options 4B and reserve it in the Rulebook in order to harmonize its Options Rule numbering with that of its affiliates, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC and Nasdaq PHLX LLC. The Exchange also proposes to retitle General 4 (currently titled “Regulation”) to “Registration Requirements” to harmonize its General Rule titles with that of its affiliates The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and Nasdaq BX, Inc.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the protection of investors and public interest as all of the proposed changes will increase transparency around how various existing Exchange mechanisms work today. As such, no System changes to existing functionality are being made pursuant to this proposal. Rather, this proposal is designed to reduce any potential investor confusion as to the features and applicability of certain functionality presently available on the Exchange.
Furthermore, the proposed changes seek to provide greater harmonization between the rules of the Exchange and its affiliates,
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed universal changes to replace all instances of Professional interest with non-Priority Customer interest throughout the Exchange's auction allocation rules will add greater consistency within the Exchange's rules. As discussed above, the Exchange previously made the same modifications within its standard allocation rule in Options 7, Section 10, so the proposed changes will promote more consistent terminology in the rules and make them easier for market participants to navigate and comprehend. The Exchange also believes that using the term “non-Priority Customer” reduces any potential confusion regarding any reference to Professional Orders or Professional Customer orders. In addition, the Exchange believes that clearly delineating between orders and Reponses of the same capacity in the Facilitation and Solicitation rules will bring clarity and transparency around how allocation takes place in those auction mechanisms. The complex Facilitation and Solicitation rules currently differentiate between orders and Responses,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Block rule are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as the modifications will more accurately reflect the handling of auctions in Block, specifically as it relates to execution and allocation. The proposed changes will specify that better priced interest entered into Block gets executed in full only if there is sufficient size to execute against such interest, and that Priority Customer interest gets executed first in price time priority. This specificity will be helpful to market participants utilizing Block and provide greater certainty as to how their Block orders will be executed and allocated. The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes will continue to ensure a fair and orderly market by maintaining and protecting the priority of Priority Customer orders, while still affording the opportunity for all market participants to seek liquidity and potential price improvement during each Block auction commenced on the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange is not proposing any changes to the current execution or allocation methodology but believes that the changes will promote consistency with the rulebook of its affiliated exchange BX, which offers identical functionality.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that specifying the entry checks for simple Facilitation and Solicitation is consistent with the protection of
The proposed changes to replace “must not exceed” with “will only be considered up to” in the simple Facilitation and PIM rules are intended to more accurately describe that the System will cap the size of Responses to the size of the agency order for purposes of allocation. The Exchange is not amending current System behavior; rather, the modifications will more clearly articulate the handling of Responses by the System. In addition, the proposed changes will serve to harmonize the simple and complex auction rules, thereby resulting in greater uniformity and ultimately less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance by market participants.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to specify in the simple Facilitation and PIM rules that an initiating Member may elect to receive a percentage allocation lower than 40% is consistent with the Act. This feature provides an initiating Member that submits an order into Facilitation or PIM with the flexibility to configure its allocation percentage up to the full 40% entitlement. The Exchange notes that regardless of the Member's instruction, the contra-side order would still be responsible for executing up to the full size of the agency order if there is not enough interest to execute the agency order at a particular price. The Exchange continues to believe that the 40% allocation entitlement is consistent with the statutory standards for competition and free and open markets by promoting price competition within Facilitation and PIM as Members would still have a reasonable opportunity to compete for a significant percentage of the incoming order. The Exchange also notes that the configurable 40% allocation entitlement for simple Facilitation and PIM is consistent with the configurable allocation entitlements in place on complex Facilitation and PIM as well as on its affiliated exchanges.
With respect to the proposed changes to the Facilitation and PIM auto-match feature, the Exchange is amending the current rule text so that it more accurately explains how the Exchange will allocate an order designated for auto-match today. As discussed above, the Exchange is not making any substantive changes to the allocation procedure itself; rather the proposed changes are intended to better align how this feature is described in the Auto-Match Filing.
The proposed change in Supplementary Material .04 to Options 3, Section 13 to provide that PIMs will not queue or overlap in any manner, except as described in Options 3, Section 11(f) and (g) will make clear that two simple or complex PIM auctions are not permitted to run concurrently, but that a simple PIM auction may run concurrently with a complex PIM auction. The Exchange believes that this change will reduce any potential confusion around how simultaneous PIM auctions are processed by the System.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the TVA rule is a non-substantive change to say that any amount of TVA is permitted in complex PIM (in addition to all of the other complex auction mechanisms in Options 3, Section 11). This is a corrective change as the cross-cite to complex PIM within the TVA rule was inadvertently dropped in a prior filing that relocated the complex auction rules.
The Exchange believes its proposal to provide that AIQ will not apply during an Opening Process (
The Exchange further believes that the technical changes it is proposing throughout Options 3 are non-substantive changes intended to enhance the accuracy of the Exchange's Rulebook, which will alleviate potential confusion as to the applicability of its rules. As discussed above, these changes consist of updating cross-cites and using correct terminology. Lastly, the Exchange believes that the harmonizing changes to add a new Options 4B in its Rulebook and to retitle General 4, each as discussed above, will serve to further harmonize its Rule numbering and titling with that of its affiliates, thereby promoting efficiency and conformity of
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As indicated above, no System changes to existing functionality are being made pursuant to this proposal; rather, this proposal is designed to reduce any potential investor confusion as to the features and applicability of certain functionality presently available on the Exchange. Therefore, the proposed changes are designed to enhance clarity and consistency in the Exchange's Rulebook.
Furthermore, many of the proposed changes seek to provide greater harmonization between the rules of the Exchange and its affiliates, and therefore promotes fair competition among the options exchanges. In particular, the proposed changes discussed above for Block and AIQ are based on BX rules governing identical functionality.
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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
60-day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before June 1, 2021.
Send all comments to Cynthia Pitts, Director, Disaster Administrative Services, Office of Disaster Assistance, Small Business Administration.
Cynthia Pitts, Director, Disaster Administrative Services, Disaster Assistance,
Application for benefits (loan) used to determine eligibility and credit worthiness of small businesses or not for profit organization who seek Federal assistance in a declared disaster. Respondents are disaster survivors seeking disaster assistance.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information. SBA proposes to revise the application form to collect information regarding race, ethnicity, and veteran status. Submission of this information is entirely voluntary and would not be a factor in processing the loan. The sole purpose for collecting this information is to help SBA determine the extent to which businesses owned and operated by veterans or members of racial and ethnic groups are benefitting from this disaster assistance program, and develop strategies and policies that could fill any perceived gaps and expand the program's reach.
D&I Railroad Company (D&I), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire from the State of South Dakota, acting by and through its Department of Transportation (SDDOT), and operate approximately 68 miles of rail line, consisting of two interconnected lines: (1) From milepost 0.0 at East Wye Switch, S.D., to milepost 49.40 in Canton, S.D.; and (2) from milepost 0.00 at Hawarden, Iowa, to milepost 18.60 in Beresford, S.D. (the Lines).
The verified notice states that D&I and SDDOT have negotiated terms for the transfer of the Lines pursuant to a sale agreement the parties executed on February 2, 2021, with closing to occur following the effective date of the exemption.
D&I certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in D&I's becoming a Class II or Class I rail carrier, but that its current annual revenues exceed $5 million. Pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.42(e), if a carrier's projected annual revenues will exceed $5 million, it must, at least 60 days before this exemption is to become effective, post a notice of its intent to undertake the proposed transaction at the workplace of the employees on the affected lines, serve a copy of the notice on the national offices of the labor unions with employees on the affected lines, and certify to the Board that it has done so. However, D&I has filed a petition for waiver of the 60-day advance labor notice requirements. D&I's waiver request will be addressed in a separate decision. The Board will establish the effective date of the exemption in its separate decision on the waiver request.
D&I also certifies that the proposed acquisition and operation of the Line does not involve a provision or agreement that may limit future interchange with a third-party connecting carrier.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than April 7, 2021.
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36497, should be filed with the Surface Transportation Board via e-filing on the Board's website. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on D&I's representative, Robert A. Wimbish, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606.
According to D&I, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) requests written comments regarding a potential trade action in connection with the Section 301 investigation of Spain's Digital Services Tax (DST). USTR also will convene virtual public hearings and accept rebuttal comments in relation to the potential action.
Submit documents in response to this notice, including written comments and hearing appearance requests, through the online USTR portal:
For questions concerning the investigation, please contact Ben Allen or Patrick Childress, Assistant General Counsels at (202) 395-9439 and (202) 395-9531,
Spain has adopted a DST that applies a three percent tax on certain digital services revenues related to online advertising services, online intermediary services, and data transmission services. Companies with worldwide revenues of €750 million or more and €3 million in certain digital services revenues are subject to the DST.
On June 2, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated an investigation of Spain's DST pursuant to section 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act).
Under section 303 of the Trade Act, the U.S. Trade Representative requested consultations with the government of Spain regarding the issues involved in the investigation. Consultations were held on December 17, 2020.
Based on information obtained during the investigation, USTR prepared a comprehensive report on Spain's DST (Spain DST Report). The Spain DST Report is posted on the USTR website at
On January 14, 2021, based on the information obtained during the investigation and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative determined that Spain's DST is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and therefore is actionable under sections 301(b) and 304(a) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2411(b) and 2414(a)).
Section 301(b) provides that upon determining that the acts, policies, and practices under investigation are actionable and that action is appropriate, the U.S. Trade Representative shall take all appropriate and feasible action authorized under section 301(c), subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President regarding such action, and all other appropriate and feasible action within the power of the President that the President may direct the U.S. Trade Representative to take under section 301(b), to obtain the elimination of that act, policy, or practice.
Section 301(c)(1)(B) of the Trade Act authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to impose duties on the goods of the foreign country subject to the investigation. Pursuant to sections 301(b) and (c), USTR proposes that the U.S. Trade Representative should determine that action is appropriate and that appropriate action would include the imposition of additional
In particular, USTR proposes to impose additional tariffs of up to 25 percent
USTR further proposes that the goods of Spain subject to additional tariffs would be drawn from the preliminary list of products in the Annex to this notice, as specified by the listed eight-digit tariff subheadings.
In accordance with section 304(b) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2414(b)), USTR invites comments from interested persons with respect to whether action is appropriate, and if so, the appropriate action to be taken.
USTR requests comments with respect to any issue related to the action to be taken in this investigation. With respect to the proposed tariff action outline above, USTR specifically invites comments regarding:
• The level of the burden or restriction on U.S. commerce resulting from Spain's DST, including the amount of DST payments owed by U.S. companies, the annual growth rate of such payments, and other effects, such as compliance costs.
• The appropriate aggregate level of trade to be covered by additional duties.
• The level of the increase, if any, in the rate of duty.
• The specific products to be subject to increased duties, including whether the tariff subheadings listed in the Annex should be retained or removed, or whether tariff subheadings not currently on the list should be added.
In commenting on the inclusion or removal of particular products on the preliminary list of products subject to the proposed additional duties, USTR requests that commenters address specifically whether imposing increased duties on a particular product would be practicable or effective to obtain the elimination of Spain's acts, policies, and practices, and whether imposing additional duties on a particular product would cause disproportionate economic harm to U.S. interests, including small- or medium-size businesses and consumers.
Simultaneously with this notice, USTR also is requesting public comments on proposed trade actions in five other DST investigations initiated at the same time as the Spain DST investigation. Certain interested persons may wish to provide written comments or oral testimony on multi-jurisdictional issues common to two or more investigations. To avoid duplication, the USTR portal will have a separate docket for multi-jurisdictional submissions, and USTR will hold a separate multi-jurisdictional hearing.
To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments on the proposed action by April 30, 2021, and post-hearing rebuttal comments by May 10, 2021 for the multi-jurisdictional hearing, and by May 13, 2021 for the Spain DST hearing.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a virtual public hearing for comments pertaining to the Spain DST proposed action on May 6, 2021, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Those requesting to appear at this hearing should have comments applicable only to the Spain DST proposed action.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a virtual public hearing for comments pertaining to multiple jurisdictions on May 3, 2021, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Those requesting to appear at the multi-jurisdictional hearing should have comments that are applicable to two or more DST investigations.
For either hearing, you must submit a request to appear at the specific hearing using the electronic portal at
You must submit written comments, rebuttal comments, and requests to appear at the hearing using the electronic portal at
You do not need to establish an account to submit comments. Fields with a gray (BCI) notation are for Business Confidential Information and the information entered will not be publicly available. Required fields are marked `Required' and will have a red asterisk (*). Fields with a green (Public) notation will be viewable by the public.
The first screen of the portal requires you to enter identification and contact information. Third party organizations such as law firms, trade associations, or customs brokers, should identify the full legal name of the organization they represent, and identify the primary point of contact for the submission. The remaining fields of the form are optional.
After entering the identification and contact information, you can complete the remainder of the questionnaire, or any portion of it by clicking `Next.' You can comment on multiple products in a single entry, or submit multiple comments. You will be able to navigate through each screen of the form by clicking `Next,' with or without entering a response to each field on an individual screen or page. Additionally, you will be able to upload documents at the end of the form and designate whether USTR should treat the documents as business confidential or public information.
For uploads containing BCI, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters `BCI'. Any page containing BCI must be clearly marked `BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL' on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is BCI. If you request business confidential treatment, you must certify in writing that disclosure of the information would endanger trade secrets or profitability, and that the information would not customarily be released to the public. Parties uploading attachments containing BCI also must submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version, which must be uploaded on
You can view all public submissions on the USTR portal at
All products that are classified in the eight-digit subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) that are listed in this Annex are covered by the proposed action. The product descriptions that are contained in this Annex are provided for informational purposes only, and are not intended to delimit in any way the scope of the proposed action. Any questions regarding the scope of a particular HTSUS subheading should be referred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In the product descriptions, the abbreviation “nesoi” means “not elsewhere specified or included”.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) requests written comments regarding a potential trade action in connection with the Section 301 investigation of Austria's Digital Services Tax (DST). USTR also will convene virtual public hearings and accept rebuttal comments in relation to the potential action.
Submit documents in response to this notice, including written comments and hearing appearance requests, through the online USTR portal:
For questions concerning the investigation, please contact Ben Allen or Patrick Childress, Assistant General Counsels at (202) 395-9439 and (202) 395-9531, respectively; Robert Tanner, Director, Services and Investment at (202) 395-6125; or Michael Rogers, Director, Europe and the Middle East at (202) 395-2684. For issues with on-line submissions, please contact the USTR Section 301 line at (202) 395-5725.
Austria has adopted a DST that imposes a 5% tax on gross revenues from digital advertising services provided in Austria. The DST applies only to companies with annual global revenues of €750 million or more, and annual revenues from digital advertising services in Austria of €25 million or more.
On June 2, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated an investigation of Austria's DST pursuant to section 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act).
Under section 303 of the Trade Act, the U.S. Trade Representative requested consultations with the government of Austria regarding the issues involved in the investigation. Consultations were held on December 21, 2020.
Based on information obtained during the investigation, USTR prepared a comprehensive report on Austria's DST (Austria DST Report). The Austria DST Report is posted on the USTR website at
On January 14, 2021, based on the information obtained during the investigation and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative determined that Austria's DST is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and therefore is actionable under sections 301(b) and 304(a) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2411(b) and 2414(a)).
Section 301(b) provides that upon determining that the acts, policies, and practices under investigation are actionable and that action is appropriate, the U.S. Trade Representative shall take all appropriate
Section 301(c)(1)(B) of the Trade Act authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to impose duties on the goods of the foreign country subject to the investigation. Pursuant to sections 301(b) and (c), USTR proposes that the U.S. Trade Representative should determine that action is appropriate and that appropriate action would include the imposition of additional
In particular, USTR proposes to impose additional tariffs of up to 25 percent
USTR further proposes that the goods of Austria subject to additional tariffs would be drawn from the preliminary list of products in the Annex to this notice, as specified by the listed eight-digit tariff subheadings.
In accordance with section 304(b) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2414(b)), USTR invites comments from interested persons with respect to whether action is appropriate, and if so, the appropriate action to be taken.
USTR requests comments with respect to any issue related to the action to be taken in this investigation. With respect to the proposed tariff action outline above, USTR specifically invites comments regarding:
• The level of the burden or restriction on U.S. commerce resulting from Austria's DST, including the amount of DST payments owed by U.S. companies, the annual growth rate of such payments, and other effects, such as compliance costs.
• The appropriate aggregate level of trade to be covered by additional duties.
• The level of the increase, if any, in the rate of duty.
• The specific products to be subject to increased duties, including whether the tariff subheadings listed in the Annex should be retained or removed, or whether tariff subheadings not currently on the list should be added.
In commenting on the inclusion or removal of particular products on the preliminary list of products subject to the proposed additional duties, USTR requests that commenters specifically address whether imposing increased duties on a particular product would be practicable or effective to obtain the elimination of Austria's acts, policies, and practices, and whether imposing additional duties on a particular product would cause disproportionate economic harm to U.S. interests, including small- or medium-size businesses and consumers.
Simultaneously with this notice, USTR also is requesting public comments on proposed trade actions in five other DST investigations initiated at the same time as the Austria DST investigation. Certain interested persons may wish to provide written comments or oral testimony on multi-jurisdictional issues common to two or more investigations. To avoid duplication, the USTR portal will have a separate docket for multi-jurisdictional submissions, and USTR will hold a separate multi-jurisdictional hearing.
To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments on the proposed action by April 30, 2021, and post-hearing rebuttal comments by May 10, 2021 for the multi-jurisdictional hearing, and by May 18, 2021 for the Austria DST hearing.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a virtual public hearing for comments pertaining to the Austria DST proposed action on May 11, 2021, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Those requesting to appear at this hearing should have comments applicable only to the Austria DST proposed action.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a virtual public hearing for comments pertaining to multiple jurisdictions on May 3, 2021, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Those requesting to appear at the multi-jurisdictional hearing should have comments that are applicable to two or more DST investigations.
For either hearing, you must submit a request to appear at the specific hearing using the electronic portal at
You must submit written comments, rebuttal comments, and requests to appear at the hearing using the electronic portal at
You do not need to establish an account to submit comments. Fields with a gray (BCI) notation are for Business Confidential Information and the information entered will not be publicly available. Required fields are marked `Required' and will have a red asterisk (*). Fields with a green (Public) notation will be viewable by the public.
The first screen of the portal requires you to enter identification and contact information. Third party organizations such as law firms, trade associations, or customs brokers, should identify the full legal name of the organization they represent, and identify the primary point of contact for the submission. The remaining fields of the form are optional.
After entering the identification and contact information, you can complete the remainder of the questionnaire, or any portion of it by clicking `Next.' You can comment on multiple products in a single entry, or submit multiple comments. You will be able to navigate through each screen of the form by clicking `Next,' with or without entering a response to each field on an individual screen or page. Additionally, you will be able to upload documents at the end of the form and designate whether USTR should treat the documents as business confidential or public information.
For uploads containing BCI, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters `BCI'. Any page containing BCI must be clearly marked `BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL' on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is BCI. If you request business confidential treatment, you must certify in writing that disclosure of the information would endanger trade secrets or profitability, and that the information would not customarily be released to the public. Parties uploading attachments containing BCI also must
You can view all public submissions on the USTR portal at
All products that are classified in the eight-digit subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) that are listed in this Annex are covered by the proposed action. The product descriptions that are contained in this Annex are provided for informational purposes only, and are not intended to delimit in any way the scope of the proposed action. Any questions regarding the scope of a particular HTSUS subheading should be referred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In the product descriptions, the abbreviation “nesoi” means “not elsewhere specified or included”.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) requests written comments regarding a potential trade action in connection with the Section 301 investigation of Italy's Digital Services Tax (DST). USTR also will convene virtual public hearings and accept rebuttal comments in relation to the potential action.
Submit documents in response to this notice, including written comments and hearing appearance requests, through the online USTR portal:
For questions concerning the investigation, please contact Ben Allen or Patrick Childress, Assistant General Counsels at (202) 395-9439 and (202) 395-9531, respectively; Robert Tanner, Director, Services and Investment at (202) 395-6125; or Michael Rogers, Director, Europe and the Middle East at (202) 395-2684. For issues with on-line submissions, please contact the USTR Section 301 line at (202) 395-5725.
Italy has adopted a DST that applies to companies that during the previous calendar year, generated €750 million or more in worldwide revenues and €5.5 million or more in revenues deriving from the provision of digital services in Italy.
On June 2, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated an investigation of Italy's DST pursuant to section 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act).
Under section 303 of the Trade Act, the U.S. Trade Representative requested consultations with the government of Italy regarding the issues involved in the investigation. Consultations were held on November 10, 2020.
Based on information obtained during the investigation, USTR prepared a comprehensive report on Italy's DST (Italy DST Report). The Italy DST Report is posted on the USTR website at
On January 6, 2021, based on the information obtained during the investigation and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative determined that Italy's DST is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and therefore is actionable under sections 301(b) and 304(a) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2411(b) and 2414(a)).
Section 301(b) provides that upon determining that the acts, policies, and practices under investigation are actionable and that action is appropriate, the U.S. Trade Representative shall take all appropriate and feasible action authorized under section 301(c), subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President regarding such action, and all other appropriate and feasible action within the power of the President that the President may direct the U.S. Trade Representative to take under section 301(b), to obtain the elimination of that act, policy, or practice.
Section 301(c)(1)(B) of the Trade Act authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to impose duties on the goods of the foreign country subject to the investigation. Pursuant to sections 301(b) and (c), USTR proposes that the U.S. Trade Representative should determine that action is appropriate and that appropriate action would include the imposition of additional
In particular, USTR proposes to impose additional tariffs of up to 25 percent
USTR further proposes that the goods of Italy subject to additional tariffs would be drawn from the preliminary list of products in the Annex to this notice, as specified by the listed eight-digit tariff subheadings.
In accordance with section 304(b) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2414(b)), USTR invites comments from interested persons with respect to whether action is appropriate, and if so, the appropriate action to be taken.
USTR requests comments with respect to any issue related to the action to be taken in this investigation. With respect to the proposed tariff action outline above, USTR specifically invites comments regarding:
• The level of the burden or restriction on U.S. commerce resulting from Italy's DST, including the amount of DST payments owed by U.S. companies, the annual growth rate of such payments, and other effects, such as compliance costs.
• The appropriate aggregate level of trade to be covered by additional duties.
• The level of the increase, if any, in the rate of duty.
• The specific products to be subject to increased duties, including whether the tariff subheadings listed in the Annex should be retained or removed, or whether tariff subheadings not currently on the list should be added.
In commenting on the inclusion or removal of particular products on the preliminary list of products subject to the proposed additional duties, USTR requests that commenters specifically address whether imposing increased duties on a particular product would be practicable or effective to obtain the elimination of Italy's acts, policies, and practices, and whether imposing additional duties on a particular product would cause disproportionate economic harm to U.S. interests, including small- or medium-size businesses and consumers.
Simultaneously with this notice, USTR also is requesting public comments on proposed trade actions in five other DST investigations initiated at the same time as the Italy DST investigation. Certain interested persons may wish to provide written comments or oral testimony on multi-jurisdictional issues common to two or more investigations. To avoid duplication, the USTR portal will have a separate docket for multi-jurisdictional submissions, and USTR will hold a separate multi-jurisdictional hearing.
To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments on the proposed action by April 30, 2021, and post-hearing rebuttal comments by May 10, 2021 for the multi-jurisdictional hearing, and by May 12, 2021 for the Italy DST hearing.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a virtual public hearing for comments pertaining to the Italy DST proposed action on May 5, 2021, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Those requesting to appear at this hearing should have comments applicable only to the Italy DST proposed action.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a virtual public hearing for comments pertaining to multiple jurisdictions on May 3, 2021, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Those requesting to appear at the multi-jurisdictional hearing should have comments that are applicable to two or more DST investigations.
For either hearing, you must submit a request to appear at the specific hearing using the electronic portal at
You must submit written comments, rebuttal comments, and requests to appear at the hearing using the electronic portal at
You do not need to establish an account to submit comments. Fields with a gray (BCI) notation are for Business Confidential Information and the information entered will not be publicly available. Required fields are marked `Required' and will have a red asterisk (*). Fields with a green (Public) notation will be viewable by the public.
The first screen of the portal requires you to enter identification and contact information. Third party organizations such as law firms, trade associations, or customs brokers should identify the full legal name of the organization they represent, and identify the primary point of contact for the submission. The remaining fields of the form are optional.
After entering the identification and contact information, you can complete the remainder of the questionnaire, or any portion of it by clicking `Next.' You can comment on multiple products in a single entry, or submit multiple comments. You will be able to navigate through each screen of the form by clicking `Next,' with or without entering a response to each field on an individual screen or page. Additionally, you will be able to upload documents at the end of the form and designate whether USTR should treat the documents as business confidential or public information.
For uploads containing BCI, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters `BCI'. Any page containing BCI must be clearly marked `BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL' on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is BCI. If you request business confidential treatment, you must certify in writing that disclosure of the information would endanger trade secrets or profitability, and that the information would not customarily be released to the public. Parties uploading attachments containing BCI also must submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version—which must be uploaded on
You can view all public submissions on the USTR portal at
All products that are classified in the eight-digit subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) that are listed in this Annex are covered by the proposed action. The product descriptions that are contained in this Annex are provided for informational purposes only, and are not intended to delimit in any way the scope of the proposed action. Any questions regarding the scope of a particular HTSUS subheading should be referred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In the product descriptions, the abbreviation “nesoi” means “not elsewhere specified or included”.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) requests written comments regarding a potential trade action in connection with the Section 301 investigation of Turkey's Digital Services Tax (DST). USTR also will convene virtual public hearings and accept rebuttal comments in relation to the potential action.
Submit documents in response to this notice, including written comments and hearing appearance requests, through the online USTR portal:
For questions concerning the investigation, please contact Ben Allen or Patrick Childress, Assistant General Counsels at (202) 395-9439 and (202) 395-9531, respectively; Robert Tanner, Director, Services and Investment at (202) 395-6125; or Michael Rogers, Director, Europe and the Middle East at (202) 395-2684. For issues with on-line submissions, please contact the USTR Section 301 line at (202) 395-5725.
Turkey has adopted a DST that applies to companies that during the previous calendar year, generated €750 million or more in worldwide revenues and TRY 20 million or more in revenues deriving from the provision of digital services in Turkey.
On June 2, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated an investigation of Turkey's DST pursuant to section 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act).
Under section 303 of the Trade Act, the U.S. Trade Representative requested consultations with the government of Turkey regarding the issues involved in the investigation. Consultations were held on September 29, 2020.
Based on information obtained during the investigation, USTR prepared a comprehensive report on Turkey's DST (Turkey DST Report). The Turkey DST Report is posted on the USTR website at
On January 6, 2021, based on the information obtained during the investigation and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative determined that Turkey's DST is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and therefore is actionable under sections 301(b) and 304(a) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2411(b) and 2414(a)).
Section 301(b) provides that upon determining that the acts, policies, and practices under investigation are actionable and that action is appropriate, the U.S. Trade Representative shall take all appropriate and feasible action authorized under section 301(c), subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President regarding such action, and all other appropriate and feasible action within the power of the President that the President may direct the U.S. Trade Representative to take under section 301(b), to obtain the elimination of that act, policy, or practice.
Section 301(c)(1)(B) of the Trade Act authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to impose duties on the goods of the foreign country subject to the investigation. Pursuant to sections 301(b) and (c), USTR proposes that the U.S. Trade Representative should determine that action is appropriate and that appropriate action would include the imposition of additional
In particular, USTR proposes to impose additional tariffs of up to 25 percent
USTR further proposes that the goods of Turkey subject to additional tariffs would be drawn from the preliminary list of products in the Annex to this notice, as specified by the listed eight-digit tariff subheadings.
In accordance with section 304(b) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2414(b)), USTR invites comments from interested persons with respect to whether action is appropriate, and if so, the appropriate action to be taken.
USTR requests comments with respect to any issue related to the action to be taken in this investigation. With respect to the proposed tariff action outline above, USTR specifically invites comments regarding:
• The level of the burden or restriction on U.S. commerce resulting from Turkey's DST, including the amount of DST payments owed by U.S. companies, the annual growth rate of such payments, and other effects, such as compliance costs.
• The appropriate aggregate level of trade to be covered by additional duties.
• The level of the increase, if any, in the rate of duty.
• The specific products to be subject to increased duties, including whether the tariff subheadings listed in the Annex should be retained or removed, or whether tariff subheadings not currently on the list should be added.
In commenting on the inclusion or removal of particular products on the preliminary list of products subject to the proposed additional duties, USTR requests that commenters address specifically whether imposing increased duties on a particular product would be practicable or effective to obtain the elimination of Turkey's acts, policies, and practices, and whether imposing additional duties on a particular product would cause disproportionate economic harm to U.S. interests, including small- or medium-size businesses and consumers.
Simultaneously with this notice, USTR also is requesting public comments on proposed trade actions in five other DST investigations initiated at the same time as the Turkey DST investigation. Certain interested persons may wish to provide written comments or oral testimony on multi-jurisdictional issues common to two or more investigations. To avoid duplication, the USTR portal will have a separate docket for multi-jurisdictional submissions, and USTR will hold a separate multi-jurisdictional hearing.
To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments on the proposed action by April 30, 2021, and post-hearing rebuttal comments by May 10, 2021 for the multi-jurisdictional hearing, and by May 14, 2021 for the Turkey DST hearing.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a virtual public hearing for comments pertaining to the Turkey DST proposed action on May 7, 2021, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Those requesting to appear at this hearing should have comments applicable only to the Turkey DST proposed action.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a virtual public hearing for comments pertaining to multiple jurisdictions on May 3, 2021, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Those requesting to appear at the multi-jurisdictional hearing should have comments that are applicable to two or more DST investigations.
For either hearing, you must submit a request to appear at the specific hearing using the electronic portal at
You must submit written comments, rebuttal comments, and requests to appear at the hearing using the electronic portal at
You do not need to establish an account to submit comments. Fields with a gray (BCI) notation are for Business Confidential Information and the information entered will not be publicly available. Required fields are marked `Required' and will have a red asterisk (*). Fields with a green (Public) notation will be viewable by the public.
The first screen of the portal requires you to enter identification and contact information. Third party organizations such as law firms, trade associations, or customs brokers, should identify the full legal name of the organization they represent, and identify the primary point of contact for the submission. The remaining fields of the form are optional.
After entering the identification and contact information, you can complete the remainder of the questionnaire, or any portion of it by clicking `Next.' You can comment on multiple products in a single entry, or submit multiple comments. You will be able to navigate through each screen of the form by clicking `Next,' with or without entering a response to each field on an individual screen or page. Additionally, you will be able to upload documents at the end of the form and designate whether USTR should treat the documents as business confidential or public information.
For uploads containing BCI, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters `BCI'. Any page containing BCI must be clearly marked `BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL' on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is BCI. If you request business confidential treatment, you must certify in writing that disclosure of the information would endanger trade secrets or profitability, and that the information would not customarily be released to the public. Parties uploading attachments containing BCI also must submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version, which must be uploaded on
You can view all public submissions on the USTR portal at
All products that are classified in the 8-digit subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) that are listed in this Annex are covered by the proposed action. The product descriptions that are contained in this Annex are provided for informational purposes only, and are not intended to delimit in any way the scope of the proposed action. Any questions regarding the scope of a particular HTSUS subheading should be referred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In the product descriptions, the abbreviation “nesoi” means “not elsewhere specified or included”.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) requests written comments regarding a potential trade action in connection with the Section 301 investigation of India's Digital Services Tax (DST). USTR also will convene virtual public hearings and accept rebuttal comments in relation to the potential action.
Submit documents in response to this notice, including written comments and hearing appearance requests, through the online USTR portal:
For questions concerning the investigation, please contact Ben Allen or Patrick Childress, Assistant General Counsels at (202) 395-9439 and (202) 395-9531, respectively; Robert Tanner, Director, Services and Investment at (202) 395-6125; or Brendan Lynch, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for South and Central Asian Affairs at (202) 395-2851. For issues with on-line submissions, please contact the USTR Section 301 line at (202) 395-5725.
India has adopted a DST that imposes a two percent tax on revenue generated from a broad range of digital services offered in India, including digital platform services, digital content sales, digital sales of a company's own goods, data-related services, software-as-a-service, and several other categories of digital services. India's DST only applies to “non-resident” companies.
On June 2, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated an investigation of India's DST pursuant to section 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act).
Under section 303 of the Trade Act, the U.S. Trade Representative requested consultations with the government of India regarding the issues involved in the investigation. Consultations were held on November 5, 2020.
Based on information obtained during the investigation, USTR prepared a comprehensive report on India's DST (India DST Report). The India DST Report is posted on the USTR website at
On January 6, 2021, based on the information obtained during the investigation and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative determined that India's DST is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and therefore is actionable under sections 301(b) and 304(a) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2411(b) and 2414(a)).
Section 301(b) provides that upon determining that the acts, policies, and practices under investigation are actionable and that action is appropriate, the U.S. Trade Representative shall take all appropriate and feasible action authorized under section 301(c), subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President regarding such action, and all other appropriate and feasible action within the power of the President that the President may direct the U.S. Trade Representative to take under section 301(b), to obtain the elimination of that act, policy, or practice.
Section 301(c)(1)(B) of the Trade Act authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to impose duties on the goods of the foreign country subject to the investigation. Pursuant to sections 301(b) and (c), USTR proposes that the U.S. Trade Representative should determine that action is appropriate and that appropriate action would include the imposition of additional
In particular, USTR proposes to impose additional tariffs of up to 25 percent
USTR further proposes that the goods of India subject to additional tariffs would be drawn from the preliminary list of products in the Annex to this notice, as specified by the listed eight-digit tariff subheadings.
In accordance with section 304(b) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2414(b)), USTR invites comments from interested persons with respect to whether action is appropriate, and if so, the appropriate action to be taken.
USTR requests comments with respect to any issue related to the action to be taken in this investigation. With respect to the proposed tariff action outlined above, USTR specifically invites comments regarding:
• The level of the burden or restriction on U.S. commerce resulting from India's DST, including the amount of DST payments owed by U.S. companies, the annual growth rate of such payments, and other effects, such as compliance costs.
• The appropriate aggregate level of trade to be covered by additional duties.
• The level of the increase, if any, in the rate of duty.
• The specific products to be subject to increased duties, including whether the tariff subheadings listed in the Annex should be retained or removed, or whether tariff subheadings not currently on the list should be added.
In commenting on the inclusion or removal of particular products on the preliminary list of products subject to the proposed additional duties, USTR requests that commenters specifically address whether imposing increased duties on a particular product would be practicable or effective to obtain the elimination of India's acts, policies, and practices, and whether imposing additional duties on a particular product would cause disproportionate economic harm to U.S. interests, including small- or medium-size businesses and consumers.
Simultaneously with this notice, USTR also is requesting public comments on proposed trade actions in five other DST investigations initiated at the same time as the India DST investigation. Certain interested persons may wish to provide written comments or oral testimony on multi-jurisdictional issues common to two or more investigations. To avoid duplication, the USTR portal will have a separate docket for multi-jurisdictional submissions, and USTR will hold a separate multi-jurisdictional hearing.
To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments on the proposed action by April 30, 2021, and post-hearing rebuttal comments by May 10, 2021 for the multi-jurisdictional hearing, and by May 17, 2021 for the India DST hearing.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a virtual public hearing for comments pertaining to the India DST proposed action on May 10, 2021, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Those requesting to appear at this hearing should have comments applicable only to the India DST proposed action.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a virtual public hearing for comments pertaining to multiple jurisdictions on May 3, 2021, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Those requesting to appear at the multi-jurisdictional hearing should have comments that are applicable to two or more DST investigations.
For either hearing, you must submit a request to appear at the specific hearing using the electronic portal at
You must submit written comments, rebuttal comments, and requests to appear at the hearing using the electronic portal at
You do not need to establish an account to submit comments. Fields with a gray (BCI) notation are for Business Confidential Information and the information entered will not be publicly available. Required fields are marked `Required' and will have a red asterisk (*). Fields with a green (Public) notation will be viewable by the public.
The first screen of the portal requires you to enter identification and contact information. Third party organizations such as law firms, trade associations, or customs brokers should identify the full legal name of the organization they represent, and identify the primary point of contact for the submission. The remaining fields of the form are optional.
After entering the identification and contact information, you can complete the remainder of the questionnaire, or any portion of it by clicking `Next.' You can comment on multiple products in a single entry, or submit multiple comments. You will be able to navigate through each screen of the form by clicking `Next,' with or without entering a response to each field on an individual screen or page. Additionally, you will be able to upload documents at the end of the form and designate whether USTR should treat the documents as business confidential or public information.
For uploads containing BCI, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters `BCI'. Any page containing BCI must be clearly marked `BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL' on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is BCI. If you request business confidential treatment, you must certify in writing that disclosure of the information would endanger trade secrets or profitability, and that the information would not customarily be released to the public. Parties uploading attachments containing BCI also must submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version, which must be uploaded on
You can view all public submissions on the USTR portal at
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Notice.
The U.S. Trade Representative is terminating the Section 301 investigations of Digital Services Taxes (DSTs) under consideration by Brazil, the Czech Republic, the European Union, and Indonesia because these jurisdictions either have not adopted or not implemented a DST during the period of investigation.
For questions concerning the investigations, please contact Benjamin Allen or Patrick Childress, Assistant General Counsels at (202) 395-9439 and (202) 395-9531, respectively; or Robert Tanner, Director, Services and Investment at (202) 395-6125. For jurisdiction-specific questions, please contact: Courtney Smothers, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Latin America at (202) 395-7657 (for Brazil); Michael Rogers, Director, Europe and the Middle East at (202) 395-2684 (for the Czech Republic and the EU); or Bart Thanhauser, Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific at (202) 395-4088 (for Indonesia).
The Section 301 investigations of DSTs under consideration by Brazil, the Czech Republic, the European Union, and Indonesia are terminated as of March 26, 2021.
On June 2, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated investigations pursuant to section 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, of DSTs under consideration by Brazil, the Czech Republic, the European Union, and Indonesia. 85 FR 34709 (June 5, 2020).
On January 13, 2021, USTR issued a status update on these four investigations:
As of March 25, 2021, Brazil, the Czech Republic, and the European Union have not adopted DSTs, and Indonesia has not implemented a DST. Under the Section 301 statute, determinations must be made within one year of initiation, or in this case by June 2, 2021. Even if one or more of these jurisdictions were to adopt or implement a DST prior to June 2, USTR would not have sufficient time to determine whether the DST was actionable under Section 301 and, if so, what action, if any, to take to obtain the elimination of the measure.
Accordingly, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined that it is appropriate to terminate these investigations at this time. USTR will continue to monitor the status of any proposed or adopted DST in these four jurisdictions, and may, if appropriate, initiate one or more new Section 301 investigations.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) requests written comments regarding a potential trade action in connection with the Section 301 investigation of the United Kingdom's Digital Services Tax (DST). USTR also will convene virtual public hearings and accept rebuttal comments in relation to the potential action.
Submit documents in response to this notice, including written comments and hearing appearance requests, through the online USTR portal:
For questions concerning the investigation, please contact Ben Allen or Patrick Childress, Assistant General Counsels at (202) 395-9439 and (202) 395-9531, respectively; Robert Tanner, Director, Services and Investment at (202) 395-6125; or Michael Rogers, Director, Europe and the Middle East at (202) 395-2684. For issues with on-line submissions, please contact the USTR Section 301 line at (202) 395-5725.
The United Kingdom's has adopted a DST that applies a two percent tax on the revenues of certain search engines, social media platforms and online marketplaces. The United Kingdom's DST applies only to companies with digital services revenues exceeding £500 million and United Kingdom digital services revenues exceeding £25 million.
On June 2, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated an investigation of the United Kingdom's DST pursuant to section 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act).
Under section 303 of the Trade Act, the U.S. Trade Representative requested consultations with the government of the United Kingdom regarding the issues involved in the investigation. Consultations were held on December 4, 2020.
Based on information obtained during the investigation, USTR prepared a comprehensive report on the United Kingdom's DST (United Kingdom DST Report). The United Kingdom DST Report is posted on the USTR website at
On January 14, 2021, based on the information obtained during the investigation and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative determined that the United Kingdom's DST is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and therefore is actionable under sections 301(b) and 304(a) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2411(b) and 2414(a)).
Section 301(b) provides that upon determining that the acts, policies, and practices under investigation are actionable and that action is appropriate, the U.S. Trade Representative shall take all appropriate and feasible action authorized under section 301(c), subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President regarding such action, and all other appropriate and feasible action within the power of the President that the President may direct the U.S. Trade Representative to take under section 301(b), to obtain the elimination of that act, policy, or practice.
Section 301(c)(1)(B) of the Trade Act authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to impose duties on the goods of the foreign country subject to the investigation. Pursuant to sections 301(b) and (c), USTR proposes that the U.S. Trade Representative should determine that action is appropriate and that appropriate action would include the imposition of additional
In particular, USTR proposes to impose additional tariffs of up to 25 percent
USTR further proposes that the goods of the United Kingdom subject to additional tariffs would be drawn from the preliminary list of products in the Annex to this notice, as specified by the listed eight-digit tariff subheadings.
In accordance with section 304(b) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2414(b)), USTR invites comments from interested persons with respect to whether action is appropriate, and if so, the appropriate action to be taken.
USTR requests comments with respect to any issue related to the action to be taken in this investigation. With respect to the proposed tariff action outline above, USTR specifically invites comments regarding:
• The level of the burden or restriction on U.S. commerce resulting from the United Kingdom's DST, including the amount of DST payments owed by U.S. companies, the annual growth rate of such payments, and other effects, such as compliance costs.
• The appropriate aggregate level of trade to be covered by additional duties.
• The level of the increase, if any, in the rate of duty.
• The specific products to be subject to increased duties, including whether the tariff subheadings listed in the Annex should be retained or removed, or whether tariff subheadings not currently on the list should be added.
In commenting on the inclusion or removal of particular products on the preliminary list of products subject to the proposed additional duties, USTR requests that commenters specifically address whether imposing increased duties on a particular product would be practicable or effective to obtain the elimination of the United Kingdom's acts, policies, and practices, and whether imposing additional duties on a particular product would cause disproportionate economic harm to U.S. interests, including small- or medium-size businesses and consumers.
Simultaneously with this notice, USTR also is requesting public comments on proposed trade actions in five other DST investigations initiated at the same time as the United Kingdom DST investigation. Certain interested persons may wish to provide written comments or oral testimony on multi-jurisdictional issues common to two or more investigations. To avoid duplication, the USTR portal will have a separate docket for multi-jurisdictional submissions, and USTR will hold a separate multi-jurisdictional hearing.
To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments on the proposed action by April 30, 2021, and post-hearing rebuttal comments by May 10, 2021 for the multi-jurisdictional hearing, and by May 11, 2021 for the United Kingdom DST hearing.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a virtual public hearing for comments pertaining to the United Kingdom DST proposed action on May 4, 2021, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Those requesting to appear at this hearing should have comments applicable only to the United Kingdom DST proposed action.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a virtual public hearing for comments pertaining to multiple jurisdictions on May 3, 2021, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Those requesting to appear at the multi-jurisdictional hearing should have comments that are applicable to two or more DST investigations.
For either hearing, you must submit a request to appear at the specific hearing using the electronic portal at
You must submit written comments, rebuttal comments, and requests to appear at the hearing using the electronic portal at
You do not need to establish an account to submit comments. Fields with a gray (BCI) notation are for Business Confidential Information and the information entered will not be publicly available. Required fields are marked `Required' and will have a red asterisk (*). Fields with a green (Public) notation will be viewable by the public.
The first screen of the portal requires you to enter identification and contact information. Third party organizations such as law firms, trade associations, or customs brokers, should identify the full legal name of the organization they represent, and identify the primary point of contact for the submission. The remaining fields of the form are optional.
After entering the identification and contact information, you can complete the remainder of the questionnaire, or any portion of it by clicking `Next.' You can comment on multiple products in a single entry, or submit multiple comments. You will be able to navigate through each screen of the form by clicking `Next,' with or without entering a response to each field on an individual screen or page. Additionally, you will be able to upload documents at the end of the form and designate whether USTR should treat the documents as business confidential or public information.
For uploads containing BCI, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters `BCI'. Any page containing BCI must be clearly marked `BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL' on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is BCI. If you request business confidential treatment, you must certify in writing that disclosure of the information would endanger trade secrets or profitability, and that the information would not customarily be released to the public. Parties uploading attachments containing BCI also must submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version, which must be uploaded on
You can view all public submissions on the USTR portal at
All products that are classified in the eight-digit subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) that are listed in this Annex are covered by the proposed action. The product descriptions that are contained in this Annex are provided for informational purposes only, and are not intended to delimit in any way the scope of the proposed action. Any questions regarding the scope of a particular HTSUS subheading should be referred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In the product descriptions, the abbreviation “nesoi” means “not elsewhere specified or included”.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves the member of the public that may submit an Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) request to the FAA by using the Airworthiness Directives Development (ADD) External website. The information to be collected will be used to support publicly disseminated information to the FAA and/or is necessary because this information supports the Department of Transpiration's strategic goal to promote the public health and safety by working toward eliminating transportation-related deaths and injuries.
Written comments should be submitted by June 1, 2021.
Please send written comments:
Robert Romero by email at:
An AMOC Response Letter is written by an internal FAA user and sent to the AMOC Requester. The template may be generated from the ADD Dashboard and follows the latest Order. There is not an FAA or OMB number on this template.
A member of the public may submit an AMOC request to the FAA by using the ADD External website. Registration is not needed to use this website. External users must consent to the “Terms of Use” statement before proceeding to the AMOC proposal web page. An AMOC is required if an owner/operator of aircraft cannot comply with an AD or finds a different method to comply with the actions specified in an AD, as mandated by
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments concerning our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of a new generic information collection. As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public, FAA is requesting approval of a New Generic Information Collection Request: “Generic Clearance for Customer Interactions”.
Written comments should be submitted by June 1, 2021.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177
Barbara Hall at (940) 594-5913, or by email at:
Customer Interactions can support the Federal Aviation Administration's mission by allowing the Agency to collect qualitative and quantitative data that can help inform scientific research; aviation assessments and monitoring efforts; validate models or tools; and enhance the quantity and quality of data collected across communities. Customer Interactions also create an avenue to incorporate local knowledge and needs, and can contribute to increased data sharing, open data, and government transparency. The Federal Aviation Administration may sponsor the collection of this type of information in connection with aviation projects. All such collections will follow Agency policies and regulations. If a new collection is not within the parameters of this generic Information Collection Request (ICR), the Agency will submit a separate information collection request to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval.
Collections under this generic ICR will be from volunteers who participate on their own initiative through an open and transparent process; the collections will be low-burden for participants; collections will be low-cost for both the participants and the Federal Government; and data will be available to support the endeavors of the Agency, states, tribal or local entities where data collection occurs.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a generic information collection. As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, FAA has an approved Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery”.
Written comments should be submitted by June 1, 2021.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
Barbara Hall at (940) 594-5913, or by email at:
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.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Announcement of public meeting.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) invites interested persons to participate in a public meeting to discuss recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). The RSAC is a Federal Advisory Committee that provides a forum for collaborative problem solving of critical safety issues and, as appropriate, develops recommendations for railroad safety regulations through a consensus process.
The public meeting is scheduled for April 16, 2021. The meeting will commence at 10:00 a.m. and will adjourn by 12:00 p.m. (all times Eastern Daylight Time). Requests to attend the meeting must be received by April 9, 2021. Requests for time to speak at the meeting must be received by April 9, 2021, and must include any written materials intended for presentation at the meeting. Requests for accommodations because of a disability must be received by April 9, 2021.
The meeting will be held by phone. Information on how to call into the meeting will be provided upon registration.
Comments on the RSAC process in response to this Announcement should be submitted to docket number FRA-2021-0039 at
Kenton Kilgore, RSAC Designated Federal Officer/RSAC Coordinator, FRA Office of Railroad Safety, (202) 493-6286 or
The RSAC is a Federal Advisory Committee composed of 34 voting representatives from 23 member organizations, representing various rail industry perspectives. The RSAC has a balanced membership of railroad management, labor, and other appropriate railroad industry stakeholders. The RSAC's past recommendations reflect the participants' careful evaluation of significant and complex safety and regulatory issues. The RSAC has addressed 58 tasks and conducted almost 600 committee, working group, and task force meetings on critical safety issues.
A copy of the current RSAC charter and other relevant reference documents are available in the docket for review. Additional general information about the RSAC is available on the RSAC website at
This meeting is intended to solicit public input on the RSAC's current charter and related requirements, and input on how to improve the RSAC process generally. Although FRA welcomes input on any issues related to the structure, organization, and processes of the RSAC, in advance of the meeting FRA will post an agenda in the docket highlighting specific issues on which FRA is interested in receiving feedback. FRA will compile all input received at the meeting and post that compilation to the docket.
Notice and request for public comment.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the Office of Certification, Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation (CCME) Title VI Compliance Worksheet (Worksheet). The Worksheet will be an online form submitted through the CDFI Fund's Award Management Information System (AMIS).
Written comments must be received on or before June 1, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Submit your comments via email to Heather Hunt, Acting Program Manager for the Office of Certification, Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation, CDFI Fund at
Heather Hunt, CCME Acting Program Manager, CDFI Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20220, (202) 653-0421 (not a toll-free number). Other information regarding the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained on the CDFI Fund website at
These requirements are set forth in the United States Department of the Treasury regulations implementing Title VI located in 31 CFR part 22, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Race, Color, or National Origin in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from the Department of the Treasury. These regulations apply to Applicants as well as their prospective sub-recipients that are not direct beneficiaries of Federal Financial Assistance (
The United States Department of the Treasury regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (Title VI), are set forth in 31 CFR part 22. The Applicant should review such regulations carefully before completing this section. Please note that these regulations apply to Applicants as well as their prospective subrecipients that are not direct beneficiaries of Federal Financial Assistance (
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (agencies).
Request for information and comment.
The agencies are gathering information and comments on financial institutions' use of artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning (ML). The purpose of this request for information (RFI) is to understand respondents' views on the use of AI by financial institutions in their provision of services to customers and for other business or operational purposes; appropriate governance, risk management, and controls over AI; and any challenges in developing, adopting, and managing AI. The RFI also solicits respondents' views on the use of AI in financial services to assist in determining whether any clarifications from the agencies would be helpful for financial institutions' use of AI in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection.
Comments must be received by June 1, 2021.
Interested parties are encouraged to submit written comments jointly to all of the agencies. Commenters are encouraged to use the title “
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this action by the following method:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2021-0004, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
In general, all comments received will be posted without change to
All submissions in response to this RFI, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Please do not include in your submissions sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, or other information that you would not ordinarily make public, such as trade secrets or confidential commercial information. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, or other information that you would not ordinarily make public. If you wish to submit trade secret or confidential commercial information, please contact the individuals listed in the
•
•
•
In general, the NCUA will enter all comments received into the docket and publish the comments on the
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this Request for Information by any of the following methods:
•
• Due to social distancing measures in effect, the usual opportunity to inspect paper copies of comments in the NCUA's law library is not currently available. After social distancing measures are relaxed, visitors may make an appointment to review paper copies by calling (703) 518-6540 or emailing
The agencies support responsible innovation by financial institutions that includes the identification and management of risks associated with the use of new technologies and techniques. With appropriate governance, risk management, and compliance management, financial institutions' use of innovative technologies and techniques, such as those involving AI, has the potential to augment business decision-making, and enhance services available to consumers and businesses. The Appendix of this RFI includes a non-comprehensive list of laws, regulations, and other agency issuances that may be relevant to the use of AI approaches by agency-supervised institutions.
•
•
•
•
•
•
AI has the potential to offer improved efficiency, enhanced performance, and cost reduction for financial institutions, as well as benefits to consumers and businesses. AI can identify relationships among variables that are not intuitive or not revealed by more traditional techniques. AI can better process certain forms of information, such as text, that may be impractical or difficult to process using traditional techniques. AI also facilitates processing significantly large and detailed datasets, both structured and unstructured, by identifying patterns or correlations that would be impracticable to ascertain otherwise.
Other potential AI benefits include more accurate, lower-cost, and faster underwriting, as well as expanded credit access for consumers and small businesses that may not have obtained credit under traditional credit underwriting approaches. AI applications may also enhance an institution's ability to provide products and services with greater customization.
It is important for financial institutions to have processes in place for identifying and managing potential risks associated with AI, as they do for any process, tool, or model employed. Many of the potential risks associated with using AI are not unique to AI. For instance, the use of AI could result in operational vulnerabilities, such as internal process or control breakdowns, cyber threats, information technology lapses, risks associated with the use of third parties, and model risk, all of which could affect a financial institution's safety and soundness. The use of AI can also create or heighten consumer protection risks, such as risks of unlawful discrimination, unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAP) under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), or privacy concerns.
AI may present particular risk management challenges to financial institutions in the areas of explainability, data usage, and dynamic updating.
•
•
•
As discussed, the agencies recognize that AI has the potential to offer improved efficiency, enhanced performance, and cost reduction for financial institutions, as well as benefits to consumers and businesses. In this RFI, the agencies are seeking information on financial institutions' risk management practices related to the use of AI; barriers or challenges facing financial institutions when developing, adopting, and managing AI and its risks; and benefits to financial institutions and their customers from the use of AI. The RFI also solicits respondents' views on the use of AI in financial services, which will help the agencies determine whether any clarification would be helpful for financial institutions' use of AI in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection.
Understanding the conceptual soundness of any model, tool, application, or system aids in managing its risks including those related to lack of explainability. The importance of conceptual soundness is described in existing agency guidance and is well established in industry practice. For traditional approaches, conceptual soundness is foundational both to development and validation/independent review. In the case of certain less transparent AI approaches, however, evaluations of conceptual soundness can be complicated. The underlying theory and logic may be less accessible to users than that of traditional approaches or more transparent AI approaches. Without insight into an approach's general operating principles, financial institution management may not be able to evaluate with confidence how the system will function in unforeseen circumstances. To address lack of explainability of certain AI approaches, researchers have developed techniques to help explain predictions or categorizations. These techniques are often referred to as “post-hoc” methods, because they are used to interpret the outputs rather than the design.
Like other systems, AI is designed to interact directly with training data to identify correlations and patterns and use that information for prediction or categorization. This means that data quality is important for AI. If the training data are biased or incomplete, AI may incorporate those shortcomings into its predictions or categorizations.
AI may use alternative datasets in certain applications (such as credit underwriting, fraud detection, and trading) in ways that can assist in identifying related trends or predictions that may be difficult to identify with traditional methods. The importance of practices such as data quality assessments to determine relevance and suitability of data used in a model, may be heightened in the use of AI. Finally, in many cases, AI developers process or optimize raw data so that the data can be better used for training. Various data processing techniques exist, some of which may affect performance.
“Overfitting” can occur when an algorithm “learns” from idiosyncratic patterns in the training data that are not representative of the population as a whole. Overfitting is not unique to AI, but it can be more pronounced in AI than with traditional models. Undetected overfitting could result in incorrect predictions or categorizations.
Like other data-intensive technologies, AI may be exposed to risk from a variety of criminal cybersecurity threats. For example, AI can be vulnerable to “data poisoning attacks,” which attempt to corrupt and contaminate training data to compromise the system's performance.
A particular characteristic of some AI is the ability for it to learn or evolve over time, especially as it captures new training data. Over time, this could result in drift (
A financial institution's AI strategy, use of AI, and associated risk management practices could vary substantially based on the financial institution's size, complexity of operations, business model, staffing, and risk profile, and this could affect the corresponding risks that arise. Community institutions may be more likely to use third-party AI approaches or rely on third-party services that use AI. This may pose different challenges (
Financial institutions may opt to use AI developed by third parties, rather than develop the approach internally. Existing agency guidance (as noted in the Appendix) describes information and risks that may be relevant to financial institutions when selecting third-party approaches (including ones using AI) and sets out principles for the validation of such third-party approaches.
Depending on the specific use, there may be uncertainty about how less transparent and explainable AI approaches align with applicable consumer protection legal and regulatory frameworks, which often address fairness and transparency. For example, it may be challenging to verify that a less transparent and explainable approach comports with fair lending laws.
This Appendix contains a list of laws, regulations, supervisory guidance, and other statements issued by the agencies that may be relevant to AI. This includes existing laws and regulations relating to safety and soundness and consumer protection. The items below do not constitute an exhaustive list; other laws, regulations, guidance, and statements may be relevant based on the
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Departmental offices, Department of the Treasury.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the revision of a currently approved information collection that is to be proposed for approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of International Affairs of the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning Treasury International Capital (TIC) Form SHL/SHLA, “Survey of Foreign-Residents' Holdings of U.S. Securities, including Selected Money Market Instruments”.
Written comments should be received on or before June 1, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Dwight Wolkow, International Portfolio Investment Data Systems, Department of the Treasury, Room 1050 MT, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220. In view of possible delays in mail delivery, please also notify Mr. Wolkow by email (
Copies of the proposed forms and instructions are available on the Treasury International Capital (TIC) Forms web page “
Departmental Offices; Department of the Treasury.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the revision of a currently approved information collection that is to be proposed for approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of International Affairs of the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning Treasury International Capital Form SHC/SHCA “Survey of U.S. Ownership of Foreign Securities including Selected Money Market Instruments.” The next such collection is the annual survey to be conducted as of December 31, 2021.
Written comments should be received on or before June 1, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Dwight Wolkow, International Portfolio Investment Data Systems, Department of the Treasury, Room 1050 MT, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20220. In view of possible delays in mail delivery, please also notify Mr. Wolkow by email (
Copies of the proposed form and instructions are available on the Treasury International Capital (TIC) Forms web page, Forms SHC/SHCA | U.S. Department of the Treasury. Requests for additional information should be directed to Mr. Wolkow by email (
The data collection includes large benchmark surveys (Form SHC) conducted every five years, and smaller annual surveys (Form SHCA) conducted in the non-benchmark years. The data collected under an annual survey are used in conjunction with the results of the preceding benchmark survey and of recent TIC form SLT (“Aggregate Holdings of Long-Term Securities by U.S. and Foreign Residents”) reporting to make economy-wide estimates for that non-benchmark year. Currently, the determination of who must report in the annual surveys is based primarily on the data submitted during the preceding benchmark survey and on data submitted on SLT reports in the survey year. The data requested in the annual survey will generally be the same as requested in the preceding benchmark report. Form SHC is used for the benchmark survey of all significant U.S.-resident custodians and end-investors regarding U.S. ownership of foreign securities. In non-benchmark years Form SHCA is used for the annual
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public hearing.
Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, and report to Congress annually on “the national security implications of the economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.” Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will hold a public hearing in Washington, DC on April 15, 2021 on “A Net Assessment of the CCP's Economic Ambitions, Plans, and Metrics of Future Success.”
The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, April 15, 2021, 9:30 a.m.
This hearing will be held with panelists and Commissioners participating in-person or online via videoconference. Members of the audience will be able to view a live webcast via the Commission's website at
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the hearing should contact Jameson Cunningham, 444 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; telephone: 202-624-1496, or via email at
ADA Accessibility: For questions about the accessibility of the event or to request an accommodation, please contact Jameson Cunningham via email at
The hearing will be co-chaired by Vice Chairman Robin Cleveland and Commissioner Michael Wessel. Any interested party may file a written statement by April 15, 2021 by transmitting to the contact above. A portion of the hearing will include a question and answer period between the Commissioners and the witnesses.
Congress created the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2000 in the National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 106-398), as amended by Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7), as amended by Public Law 109-108 (November 22, 2005), as amended by Public Law 113-291 (December 19, 2014).
Office of Acquisition and Logistics, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Office of Acquisition and Logistics (OAL), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2021.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OAL invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OAL's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OAL's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act 5, U.S.C. App. 2, that a meeting of the Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee (the Committee) will be held virtually on Wednesday, April 28, 2021. The meeting will begin at 11:00 a.m. EDT and adjourn at 3:00 p.m. EDT. The meeting is open to the public via Webex
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on using genetic information to optimize medical care for Veterans and enhance the development of tests and treatments for diseases particularly relevant to Veterans.
On April 28, 2021, the Committee will receive updated briefings on various VA research programs, including the Million Veteran Program (MVP), to ascertain the program's progress in the areas of participant recruitment, data generation and storage, and data access. The Committee will also receive updates from ongoing MVP research, including new COVID-related research, the return of genetics results pilot studies, final recommendations from a subcommittee on Genomics Services within VA. Additionally, the Committee will discuss and explore potential recommendations for the next annual report.
Public comments will be received at 2:15 p.m. EDT and are limited to 5 minutes each. Individuals who speak are invited to submit a 1-2 page summary of their comments for inclusion in the official meeting record to Jennifer Moser, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Research and Development (14RD), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or at
Regulatory Information Service Center.
Introduction to the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
Publication of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions and the Regulatory Plan represent key components of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30, 2017, and Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24, 2017. The fall editions of the Unified Agenda include the agency regulatory plans required by E.O. 12866, which identify regulatory priorities and provide additional detail about the most important significant regulatory actions that agencies expect to take in the coming year.
In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish semiannual “regulatory flexibility agendas” describing regulatory actions they are developing that will have significant effects on small businesses and other small entities (5 U.S.C. 602).
The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda), published in the fall and spring, helps agencies fulfill all of these requirements. All federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as part of this publication. The complete Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan can be found online at
The fall 2020 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
The complete fall 2020 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans of 28 Federal agencies and 68 Federal agency regulatory agendas.
Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, 2219F, Washington, DC 20405.
For further information about specific regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each entry. To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this publication, contact: Boris Arratia, Director, Regulatory Information Service Center (MR), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Room 2221D, Washington, DC 20405, 703-795-0816. You may also send comments to us by email at:
The fall 2020 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
The following agencies have no entries for inclusion in the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk (*) indicates agencies that appear in The Regulatory Plan. The regulatory agendas of these agencies are available to the public at
The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and information resource management activities, including implementation of Executive Order 12866 (incorporated in Executive Order 13563). The Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials, and the public.
The activities included in the Agenda are, in general, those that will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or withdrawn since the last Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866 does not require agencies to include regulations concerning military or foreign affairs functions or regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel matters.
Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or after the dates they have listed. The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda do not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities to those regulations that appear within it.
Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339) requires each agency to identify for
Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24, 2017 (82 FR 12285) requires each agency to designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO shall oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. The Executive Order also directs that each agency designate a regulatory Reform Task Force.
Each agency's section of the Plan contains a narrative statement of regulatory priorities and, for most agencies, a description of the agency's most important significant regulatory and deregulatory actions. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains a preamble providing information specific to that agency plus descriptions of the agency's regulatory and deregulatory actions.
The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all participating agencies. Unlike the printed edition, the online Agenda has no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, users can select the particular agencies' agendas they want to see. Users have broad flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To further differentiate these two stages of rulemaking in the Unified Agenda from active rulemakings, Long-Term and Completed Actions are reported separately from active rulemakings, which can be any of the first three stages of rulemaking listed above. A separate search function is provided on
A bullet (•) preceding the title of an entry indicates that the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is able to provide this cross-reference capability.
Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the
All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The definition of an “economically significant” rule is similar but not identical to the definition of a “major” rule under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104-121). (See below.)
A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be included in the agency's regulatory plan.
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts, but is neither Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/Administrative/Other.
A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations and that does not alter the body of the regulation.
A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public of the activity.
Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
•
• A reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and Either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.
Copies of the
Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly from the agency or may be found on the agency's website. Please contact the particular agency for further information.
All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are available in electronic form at
The Government Publishing Office's GPO FDsys website contains copies of the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of the significant and not significant regulatory and deregulatory actions being developed in agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in conformance with Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” and 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The agenda also describes regulations affecting small entities as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354. This agenda also identifies regulatory actions that are being reviewed in compliance with section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We invite public comment on those actions as well as any regulation consistent with Executive Order 13563.
USDA has attempted to list all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently missed. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the date shown.
USDA's complete regulatory agenda is available online at
(1) Rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
For this edition of the USDA regulatory agenda, the most important regulatory and deregulatory actions are summarized in a Statement of Regulatory Priorities that is included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online regulatory agenda and in part II of the
For further information on any specific entry shown in this agenda, please contact the person listed for that action. For general comments or inquiries about the agenda, please contact Michael Poe, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-3257.
• Limiting the types of operations in the organic supply chain that are not required to obtain organic certification;
• Imported organic products must be accompanied by an electronic import certificate to validate organic status;
• Import certificates will be submitted to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE);
• Certifying agents must notify USDA within 90 days of the opening of any new office that conducts certification activities; and,
• Entities acting on behalf of certifying agents may be suspended when there is noncompliant activity.
Maureen Lydon, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314,
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In compliance with Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), in the spring and fall of each year, publishes in the
Commerce's fall 2020 regulatory agenda includes regulatory activities that are expected to be conducted during the period November 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021.
Commerce hereby publishes its fall 2020 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
In this edition of Commerce's regulatory agenda, a list of the most important significant regulatory and deregulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the issue of the
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, Commerce's entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Within Commerce, the Office of the Secretary and various operating units may issue regulations. Among these operating units, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Patent and Trademark Office issue the greatest share of Commerce's regulations.
A large number of regulatory actions reported in the Agenda deal with fishery management programs of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). To avoid repetition of programs and definitions, as well as to provide some understanding of the technical and institutional elements of NMFS' programs, an “Explanation of Information Contained in NMFS Regulatory Entries” is provided below.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Councils also submit to NMFS proposed regulations they deem necessary or appropriate to implement FMPs. The proposed regulations, FMPs, and FMP amendments are subject to review and approval by NMFS, based on consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The Council process for developing FMPs and amendments makes it difficult for NMFS to determine the significance and timing of some regulatory actions under consideration by the Councils at the time the semiannual regulatory agenda is published.
Commerce's fall 2020 regulatory agenda follows.
This document of the Department of Commerce was signed on January 14, by Michael Walsh, Chief of Staff, Performing the Delegated Duties of General Counsel. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by the Department of
Jessica Kondel, Policy and Planning Division Division Chief, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1305 East-West Highway, Bldg. SSMC4, Silver Spring, MD 20910,
Department of Defense (DoD).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions the Department of Defense (DOD) plans for the next 12 months and those completed since the spring 2020 agenda. It was developed under the guidelines of Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” This Agenda documents DOD's work under Executive Order 13777 “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” and many regulatory actions support the recommendations of the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force (as indicated in the individual rule abstracts). This Agenda also includes regulatory actions the Department is taking to address the current worldwide pandemic. These include efforts to ensure TRICARE beneficiaries have access to the most up-to-date care required for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19. Members of the public may submit comments on individual proposed and interim final rulemakings at
This agenda updates the report published on June 30, 2020, and includes regulations expected to be issued and under review over the next 12 months. The next agenda will publish in the spring of 2021.
The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is in the Unified Agenda available online.
For information concerning the overall DoD regulatory improvement program, for general semiannual agenda information, and regarding Office of the Secretary regulations (other than those which are procurement-related), contact Ms. Patricia Toppings, telephone 571-372-0485, or write to Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010, or email:
For questions of a legal nature concerning the agenda and its statutory requirements or obligations, write to Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1600, or call 703-693-9958.
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Jennifer D. Johnson, telephone 571-372-6100, or write to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Defense Pricing and Contracting, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060, or email:
For general information on Department of the Army regulations, contact Mr. James “Jay” Satterwhite, telephone 571-515-0304, or write to the U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: AAHS-RDO, Building 1458, 9301 Chapek Road, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5605, or email:
For general information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations, contact Ms. Stacey Jensen, telephone 703-695-6791, or write to Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 108 Army Pentagon, Room 3E441, Washington, DC 20310-0108, or email:
For general information on Department of the Navy regulations, contact CDR Katherine Callan, telephone 703-614-7408, or write to Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law Division (Code 13), Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Avenue SE, Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374-5066, or email:
For general information on Department of the Air Force regulations, contact Bao-Anh Trinh, telephone 703-614-8500, or write the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief, Information Dominance/Chief Information Officer (SAF CIO/A6), 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1800, or email:
For specific agenda items, contact the appropriate individual indicated for each regulatory action.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions reports on actions planned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Departments, procurement-related actions, and actions planned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This agenda also identifies rules impacted by the:
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act;
b. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Generally, rules discussed in this agenda will contain five sections: (1) Prerule stage; (2) proposed rule stage; (3) final rule stage; (4) completed actions; and (5) long-term actions. Where certain regulatory actions indicate that small entities are affected, the effect on these entities may not necessarily have significant economic impact on a substantial number of these entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
The publishing of this agenda does not waive the applicability of the military affairs exemption in section 553 of title 5 U.S.C. and section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Education.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This document is required pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It provides information about the Unified Agenda published on December 9, 2020 at
Questions or comments related to specific regulations listed in this agenda should be directed to the agency contact listed for the regulations. Other questions or comments on this agenda should be directed to LaTanya Cannady, Program Specialist, Jackie Collins, Program Specialist, Levon Schlichter, Attorney, or Hilary Malawer, Deputy General Counsel, Division of Regulatory Services, Department of Education, Room 6C128, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-2241; telephone: LaTanya Cannady (202) 401-9676, Jackie Collins (202) 401-6310, Levon Schlichter (202) 453-6387, or Hilary Malawer (202) 401-6148. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
Section 4(b) of Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993, requires the Department of Education (ED) to publish, at a time and in a manner specified by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 602(a), requires ED to publish, in October and April of each year, a regulatory flexibility agenda.
The regulatory flexibility agenda may be combined with any other agenda that satisfies the statutory requirements (5 U.S.C. 605(a)). In compliance with the Executive order and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Secretary publishes this agenda.
For each set of regulations listed, the agenda provides the title of the document, the type of document, a citation to any rulemaking or other action taken since publication of the most recent agenda, and planned dates of future rulemaking. In addition, the agenda provides the following information:
• An abstract that includes a description of the problem to be addressed, any principal alternatives being considered, and potential costs and benefits of the action.
• An indication of whether the planned action is likely to have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
• A reference to where a reader can find the current regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations.
• A citation of legal authority.
• The name, address, and telephone number of the contact person at ED from whom a reader can obtain additional information regarding the planned action.
In accordance with ED's Principles for Regulating listed in its regulatory plan (78 FR 1361, published January 8, 2013), ED is committed to regulations that improve the quality and equality of services it provides to its customers. ED will regulate only if absolutely necessary and then in the most flexible, most equitable, and least burdensome way possible.
Interested members of the public are invited to comment on any of the items listed in this agenda that they believe are not consistent with the Principles for Regulating. Members of the public are also invited to comment on any uncompleted actions in this agenda that ED plans to review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610) to determine their economic impact on small entities.
This publication does not impose any binding obligation on ED with regard to any specific item in the agenda. ED may elect not to pursue any of the regulatory actions listed here. Dates of future regulatory actions are subject to revision in subsequent agendas.
Department of Energy.
Semi-annual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared and is making available its portion of the semi-annual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda), including its Regulatory Plan (Plan), pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Agenda is a government-wide compilation of upcoming and ongoing regulatory activity, including a brief description of each rulemaking and a timetable for action. The Agenda also includes a list of regulatory actions completed since publication of the last Agenda. The Department of Energy's portion of the Agenda includes regulatory actions called for by statute, including amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) and the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), and programmatic needs of DOE offices.
The internet is the basic means for disseminating the Agenda and providing users the ability to obtain information from the Agenda database. DOE's entire Fall 2020 Regulatory Agenda can be accessed online by going to
Publication in the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 18, 2020, by William S. Cooper, General Counsel. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by the Department of Energy. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the Department of Energy has delegated authority to the undersigned RISC Federal Register Liaison Officer to re-sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 require the semiannual issuance of an inventory of rulemaking actions under development throughout the Department, offering for public review summarized information about forthcoming regulatory actions.
The Executive Secretariat, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201; (202) 690-5627.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal government's lead agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. HHS enhances the health and well-being of Americans by promoting effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.
This Agenda presents the regulatory activities that the Department expects to undertake in the foreseeable future to advance this mission. HHS has an agency-wide effort to support the Agenda's purpose of encouraging more effective public participation in the regulatory process. For example, to encourage public participation, we regularly update our regulatory web page (
The rulemaking abstracts included in this paper issue of the
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of projected regulations, existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components. This agenda provides the public with information about DHS's regulatory and deregulatory activity. DHS expects that this information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, the Department's regulatory and deregulatory activity. DHS invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this agenda.
Please direct general comments and inquiries on the agenda to the Regulatory Affairs Law Division, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2707 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Mail Stop 0485, Washington, DC 20528-0485.
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual actions identified in this agenda to the individual listed in the summary portion as the point of contact for that action.
DHS provides this notice pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, Sept. 19, 1980) and Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (Sept. 30, 1993) as incorporated in Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011) and Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (Jan. 30, 2017), which require the Department to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The regulatory agenda is a summary of existing and projected regulations as well as actions completed since the publication of the last regulatory agenda for the Department. DHS's last semiannual regulatory agenda was published on August 26, 2020, at 85 FR 52715.
Beginning in fall 2007, the internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires Federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agendas in the
The semiannual agenda of the Department conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center.
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
RIN: 1670-AA00
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This notice provides the semiannual agenda of rules scheduled for review or development between Fall 2020 and Fall 2021. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 require publication of the agenda.
Unless otherwise indicated, all agency contacts are located at the Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
You should direct all comments and inquiries about these rules to the appropriate agency contact. You should direct general comments relating to the agenda to the Office of Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, at the address above or at 202-208-3181.
With this publication, the Department satisfies the requirement of Executive Order 12866 that the Department publish an agenda of rules that we have issued or expect to issue and of currently effective rules that we have scheduled for review.
Simultaneously, the Department meets the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions includes The Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
In some cases, the Department has withdrawn rules that were placed on previous agendas for which there has been no publication activity or for which a proposed or interim rule was published. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. Withdrawal of a rule does not necessarily mean that the Department will not proceed with the rulemaking. Withdrawal allows the Department to assess the action further and determine whether rulemaking is appropriate. Following such an assessment, the Department may determine that certain rules listed as withdrawn under this agenda are appropriate for promulgation. If that determination is made, such rules will comply with Executive Order 13771.
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The internet has become the means for disseminating the entirety of the Department of Labor's semiannual regulatory agenda. However, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires publication of a regulatory flexibility agenda in the
Laura M. Dawkins, Director, Office of Regulatory and Programmatic Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-2312, Washington, DC 20210; (202) 693-5959.
Executive Order 12866 requires the semiannual publication of an agenda of regulations that contains a listing of all the regulations the Department of Labor expects to have under active consideration for promulgation, proposal, or review during the coming one-year period. The entirety of the Department's semiannual agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires DOL to publish in the
All interested members of the public are invited and encouraged to let departmental officials know how our regulatory efforts can be improved and are invited to participate in and comment on the review or development of the regulations listed on the Department's agenda.
This document of the Department of Labor was signed on December 16, 2020, by Eugene Scalia, Secretary of Labor. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by the Department of Labor. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the Department of Labor has delegated authority to the undersigned RISC Federal Register Liaison Officer to re-sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Labor. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Regulatory Agenda).
The Regulatory and Deregulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. The intent of the Agenda is to provide the public with information about the Department of Transportation's regulatory activity planned for the next 12 months. It is expected that this information will enable the public to more effectively participate in the Department's regulatory process. The public is also invited to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on the Agenda in general to Jonathan Dols, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, Office of General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4702.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on particular items in the Agenda to the individual listed for the regulation or the general rulemaking contact person for the operating administration in appendix B.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) undertakes regulation only after careful consideration and strives to make clear the way the Department measures the risks, costs, and benefits of engaging in—or deciding not to engage in—a particular regulatory action. It is our policy to provide an opportunity for public comment on such actions to all interested stakeholders. Above all, transparency and meaningful engagement mandate that regulations should be straightforward, clear, and accessible to any interested stakeholder. The Department also embraces the notion that there should be no more regulations than necessary. We emphasize consideration of non-regulatory solutions and have rigorous processes in place for continual reassessment of existing regulations. These processes provide that regulations and other agency actions are periodically reviewed and, if appropriate, are revised to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they were originally designed, and that they remain cost-effective and cost-justified. DOT was the first agency to incorporate the Administration's regulatory reform policies permanently, codifying reforms to the Department's rulemaking, guidance, and enforcement practices. The rule codifies regulatory budgeting, the “2-for-1” plan, and the RRTF, as well as additional procedures for the Department's most costly rules, including enhanced opportunities for public participation. It also clarifies that guidance documents do not impose legal obligations and shall not be used as a basis for enforcement. Finally, the rule ensures due process protections for potential subjects of enforcement actions, including open and fair investigations and proceedings.
To help the Department achieve its goals and in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993) and the Department's “Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures” (84 FR 248; Dec. 27, 2019), the Department prepares a semiannual regulatory and deregulatory Agenda. It summarizes all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. These are matters on which action has begun or is projected during the next 12 months or for which action has been completed since the last Agenda.
In addition, this Agenda was prepared in accordance with three executive orders issued by President Trump, which directed agencies to scrutinize their regulations and other agency actions further. On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. Under section 2(a) of the Executive order unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. Under this Executive order, each agency must establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) to evaluate existing regulations, and make recommendations for their repeal, replacement, or modification. On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, requiring agencies to review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and other similar agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources.
In response to the mandate in Executive Order 13777, the Department formed an RRTF consisting of senior career and non-career leaders, which has already conducted extensive reviews of existing regulations, and identified a number of rules to be repealed, replaced, or modified. As a result of the RRTF's work, since January 2017, the Department has issued deregulatory actions that reduce net regulatory costs on the public by more than $92 billion (in net present value cost savings). With the RRTF's assistance, the Department has achieved these cost savings in a manner that is fully consistent with safety. For example, on April 30, 2020, NHTSA published the Safer, Affordable, Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency. The SAFE Vehicles rule increases U.S. competitiveness by reducing regulatory costs by over $163 billion dollars and helps American consumers afford to buy newer, cleaner, and safer vehicles by reducing the
While each regulatory and deregulatory action is evaluated on its own merits, the RRTF augments the Department's consideration of prospective rulemakings by conducting regular reviews across all OAs to identify and evaluate potential deregulatory actions. The RRTF also works to ensure that any new potential regulatory action is rigorously vetted, including an evaluation of the need or market failure requiring regulatory action, and consideration of non-regulatory alternatives.
The Department's regulatory activities are guided by four fundamental principles—safety, innovation, enabling investment in infrastructure, and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. These priorities are grounded in our national interest in maintaining U.S. global leadership in safety, innovation, and economic growth. In light of the unprecedented effects of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) public health emergency, these priorities are also grounded in regulatory actions that assist in our Nation's recovery. To accomplish our regulatory goals, the Department must create a regulatory environment that fosters growth in new and innovative industries without burdening them with unnecessary restrictions. At the same time, safety remains our highest priority; the Department remains focused on managing safety risks and ensuring we do not regress from the successes already achieved. Our planned regulatory actions reflect a careful balance that emphasizes the Department's priority in fostering innovation while at the same time meeting the challenges of maintaining a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system.
For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is working on reducing regulatory barriers to technology innovation, including the integration of automated vehicles, while continuing to focus on safety. Automated vehicles are expected to increase safety significantly by reducing the likelihood of human error when driving, which today accounts for the overwhelming majority of crashes on our nation's roadways. NHTSA plans to issue regulatory actions that: (1) Allow for updates to current FMVSS to enable the introduction of new safety technologies; and (2) streamline NHTSA's regulations outlining the administrative processes for petitioning the agency for exemptions, and reconsiderations. Similarly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is working to enable, safely and efficiently, the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System. UAS are expected to continue to drive innovation and increase safety as operators and manufacturers find new and inventive uses for UAS. For instance, UAS are poised to assist human operators with a number of different mission sets such as inspection of critical infrastructure and search and rescue, enabling beneficial and lifesaving activities that would otherwise be difficult or even impossible for a human to accomplish unassisted. The Department has regulatory efforts underway to further integrate UAS safely and efficiently. The Department's work to update and streamline its regulation of the commercial space sector is well underway. The FAA has proposed a rule that will fundamentally change how FAA licenses launches and reentries of commercial space vehicles moving from prescriptive requirements to a performance based approach. This shift will facilitate a major transformation of our national space program from one in which the Federal government has a primary role to one in which private industry drives growth in innovation and launches.
Since January 2020, the Department has been providing rapid response and emergency review of legal and operational challenges presented by COVID-19 within the transportation network. Domestically, our efforts have focused on addressing regulatory compliance made impracticable by the COVID-19 public health emergency due to office closures, personnel shortages, and other restrictions. DOT has provided extensive relief to transportation stakeholders impacted by the COVID-19 public health emergency. The Department has taken over 100 actions to provide emergency relief to transportation stakeholders through regulatory waivers, exemptions, extensions of deadlines, statements of enforcement discretion, and other guidance.
These actions individually and collectively kept our transportation systems and supply chains open to provide critical supplies and services during the national emergency. For example, to support commercial vehicle drivers—including the truckers carrying vital medical supplies to hospitals—FMCSA issued its first ever national emergency declaration to provide regulatory relief from its hours-of-service rules. FRA opened an emergency relief docket pursuant to the Administrator's Declaration of Emergency Situation, supporting a number of emergency waivers. FAA took numerous actions to ensure the continued safety of the National Airspace System and operations supporting essential services, including addressing expiring medical certificates and training requirements for pilots, and finalizing a rule to address oxygen mask usage given the risk of COVID-19 transmission. PHMSA provided temporary relief to enable transportation of hand sanitizer and other disinfecting materials.
Pursuant to the President's Executive Order on Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery, the Department has been coordinating with each of its Operating Administrations to evaluate how to expedite regulatory relief and recovery from COVID-19 without compromising safety, and determine whether such relief may be considered for permanent incorporation into the Department's rules.
An Office of Management and Budget memorandum, dated January 16, 2020, establishes the format for this Agenda.
First, the Agenda is divided by initiating offices. Then the Agenda is divided into five categories: (1) Prerule stage; (2) proposed rule stage; (3) final rule stage; (4) long-term actions; and (5) completed actions. For each entry, the Agenda provides the following information: (1) Its “significance”; (2) a short, descriptive title; (3) its legal basis; (4) the related regulatory citation in the Code of Federal Regulations; (5) any legal deadline and, if so, for what action (
For nonsignificant regulations issued routinely and frequently as a part of an established body of technical requirements (such as the Federal Aviation Administration's Airspace Rules), to keep those requirements operationally current, we only include the general category of the regulations, the identity of a contact office or official, and an indication of the expected number of regulations; we do not list individual regulations.
In the “Timetable” column, we use abbreviations to indicate the particular documents being considered. ANPRM stands for Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SNPRM for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and NPRM for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Listing a future date in this column does not mean we have made a decision to issue a document; it is the earliest date on which a rulemaking document may publish. In addition, these dates are based on current schedules. Information received after the issuance of this Agenda could result in a decision not to take regulatory action or in changes to proposed publication dates. For example, the need for further evaluation could result in a later publication date; evidence of a greater need for the regulation could result in an earlier publication date.
Finally, a dot (•) preceding an entry indicates that the entry appears in the Agenda for the first time.
The internet is the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Accordingly, DOT's printed Agenda entries include only:
1. The agency's Agenda preamble;
2. Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
3. Any rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. These elements are: Sequence Number; Title; Section 610 Review, if applicable; Legal Authority; Abstract; Timetable; Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required; Agency Contact; and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN). Additional information (for detailed list, see section heading “Explanation of Information on the Agenda”) on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet.
DOT's Agenda is intended primarily for the use of the public. Since its inception, the Department has made modifications and refinements that provide the public with more helpful information, as well as making the Agenda easier to use. We would like you, the public, to make suggestions or comments on how the Agenda could be further improved.
The Department also seeks your suggestions on which of our existing regulations you believe should be reviewed to determine whether they should be revised or revoked. We particularly draw your attention to the Department's review plan in appendix D.
The Department is especially interested in obtaining information on requirements that have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” and, therefore, must be reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If you have any suggested regulations, please submit them to the Department, along with your explanation of why they should be reviewed.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, comments are specifically invited on regulations that we have targeted for review under section 610 of the Act. The phrase (sec. 610 Review) appears at the end of the title for these reviews. Please see appendix D for the Department's section 610 review plans.
Executive Orders 13132 and 13175 require the Department to develop an account process to ensure “meaningful and timely input” by State, local, and tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism or tribal implications. These policies are defined in the Executive orders to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects” on States or Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and them, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and various levels of Government or Indian tribes. Therefore, we encourage State and local Governments or Indian tribes to provide us with information about how the Department's rulemakings impact them.
The Department is publishing this regulatory Agenda in the
This document of the Department of Transportation was signed on December 7, 2020, by Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Transportation. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by the Department of Transportation. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the Department of Transportation has delegated authority to the undersigned RISC Federal Register Liaison Officer to re-sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Transportation. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register.
To obtain a copy of a specific regulatory document in the Agenda, you should communicate directly with the contact person listed with the regulation at the address below. We note that most, if not all,
The following is a list of persons who can be contacted within the Department for general information concerning the rulemaking process within the various operating administrations.
FAA—Brandon Roberts, Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-9677.
FHWA—Jennifer Outhouse, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0761.
FMCSA—Steven J. LaFreniere, Regulatory Ombudsman, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-0596.
NHTSA—Dee Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2992.
FRA—Amanda Maizel, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 493-8014.
FTA—Chaya Koffman, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue E, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-3101.
SLSDC—Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, NY 13662; telephone (315) 764-3200.
PHMSA—Robert Ross, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 768-1365.
MARAD—Gabriel Chavez, Office of Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2621.
OST—Jonathan Dols, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-4723.
All comments submitted via the internet are submitted through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at the following address:
The public also may review regulatory dockets at or deliver comments on proposed rulemakings to the Dockets Office at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, 1-800-647-5527. Working Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Department of Transportation has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. Our Regulatory Policies and Procedures require such reviews. DOT also has responsibilities under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (January 18, 2011), Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda,” and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to conduct such reviews. This includes the designation of a Regulatory Reform Officer, the establishment of a Regulatory Reform Task Force, and the use of plain language techniques in new rules and considering its use in existing rules when we have the opportunity and resources to revise them. We are committed to continuing our reviews of existing rules and, if it is needed, will initiate rulemaking actions based on these reviews. The Department began a new 10-year review cycle with the Fall 2018 Agenda.
Section 610 requires that we conduct reviews of rules that: (1) Have been published within the last 10 years; and (2) have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (SEISNOSE). It also requires that we publish in the
Some reviews may be conducted earlier than scheduled. For example, to the extent resources permit, the plain language reviews will be conducted more quickly. Other events, such as accidents, may result in the need to conduct earlier reviews of some rules. Other factors may also result in the need to make changes; for example, we may make changes in response to public comment on this plan or in response to a presidentially mandated review. If there is any change to the review plan, we will note the change in the following Agenda. For any section 610 review, we will provide the required notice prior to the review.
Generally, the agencies have divided their rules into 10 different groups and plan to analyze one group each year. For purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-fall schedule for publication of the Agenda. Most agencies provide historical information about the reviews that have occurred over the past 10 years. Thus, Year 1 (2018) begins in the fall of 2018 and ends in the fall of 2019; Year 2 (2019) begins in the fall of 2019 and ends in the fall of 2020, and so on. The exception to this general rule is the FAA, which provides information about the reviews it completed for this year and prospective information about the reviews it intends to complete in the next 10 years. Thus, for FAA Year 1 (2017) begins in the fall of 2017 and ends in the fall of 2018; Year 2 (2018) begins in the fall of 2018 and ends in the fall of 2019, and so on. We request public comment on the timing of the reviews. For example, is there a reason for scheduling an analysis and review for a particular rule earlier than we have? Any comments concerning the plan or analyses should be submitted to the regulatory contacts listed in appendix B, General Rulemaking Contact Persons.
The agency will analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a SEISNOSE and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The level of analysis will, of course, depend on the nature of the rule and its applicability. Publication of agencies' section 610 analyses listed each fall in this Agenda provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment consistent with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We request that public comments be submitted to the Department early in the analysis year concerning the small entity impact of the rules to help us in making our determinations.
In each Fall Agenda, the agency will publish the results of the analyses it has completed during the previous year. For rules that had a negative finding on SEISNOSE, we will give a short explanation (
The agency will also examine the specified rules to determine whether any other reasons exist for revising or revoking the rule or for rewriting the rule in plain language. In each Fall Agenda, the agency will also publish information on the results of the examinations completed during the previous year.
The Agenda identifies the pending DOT section 610 Reviews by inserting “(Section 610 Review)” after the title for the specific entry. For further information on the pending reviews, see the Agenda entries at
DOT has determined that updates need to be made to the regulations identified under Year 2. The regulations will be updated as part of RIN 2105-AE26 (Revisions to the Transportation Acquisition Regulations).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most Department of Transportation (DOT) modes in past plans. As such, the FAA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the first year (the “
The RFA does not define “significant economic impact.” Therefore, there is no clear rule or number to determine when a significant economic impact occurs. However, the Small Business Administration (SBA) states that significance should be determined by considering the size of the business, the size of the competitor's business and the impact the same regulation has on larger competitors.
Likewise, the RFA does not define “substantial number.” However, the legislative history of the RFA suggests that a substantial number must be at least one but does not need to be an overwhelming percentage such as more than half. The SBA states that the substantiality of the number of small businesses affected should be determined on an industry-specific basis.
This analysis consisted of the following three steps:
1. Review of the number of small entities affected by the amendments to parts 141 through 147 and parts 170 through 187.
2. Identification and analysis of all amendments to parts 141 through 147 and parts 170 through 187 since July 2010 to determine whether any still have or now have a SEISNOSE.
3. Review of the FAA's regulatory flexibility assessment of each amendment performed as required by the RFA.
Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
General: No changes are needed.
Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
General: No changes are needed.
Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
General: No changes are needed.
Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
General: No changes are needed.
Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
General: No changes are needed.
Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no amendments to 14 CFR 185 since July 2010. Thus, no SEISNOSE exists in this part.
General: No changes are needed.
Section 610: The agency conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
General: No changes are needed.
Section 610: The agency conducted a section 610 review of this part and found no amendments to 14 CFR 185 since July 2010. Thus, no SEISNOSE exists in this part.
General: No changes are needed.
Section 610: The agency conducted a section 610 review of this part and found no SEISNOSE.
General: No changes are needed.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted regulations in title 23 of the CFR, chapter I, related to the Federal-Aid Highway Program. These regulations implement and carry out the provisions of Federal law relating to the administration of Federal aid for highways. The primary law authorizing Federal aid for highways is chapter I of title 23 of the U.S.C. 145, which expressly provides for a federally assisted State program. For this reason, the regulations adopted by the FHWA in title 23 of the CFR primarily relate to the requirements that States must meet to receive Federal funds for construction and other work related to highways. Because the regulations in title 23 primarily relate to States, which are not defined as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the FHWA believes that its regulations in title 23 do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FHWA solicits public comment on this preliminary conclusion.
• Section 610: No SEISNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEISNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEISNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEISNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEISNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEISNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: FHWA is updating these regulations under RIN 2125-AF93 to increase are cost effectiveness and reduce burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEISNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEISNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: FHWA is updating these subpart C of these regulations under RIN 2125-AF87 to reduce duplicative burdens. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: No SEISNOSE. No small entities are affected.
• General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FHWA's plain language review of these rules indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: FMCSA analyzed 49 CFR part 386, and found no SEIOSNOSE. 49 CFR part 386 is a permissive set of rules that establish procedures for respondents, petitioners, and others seeking relief from a determination of non-compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations or Hazardous Materials Regulations. The rule also provides recourse for commercial drivers to report employer harassment or coercion to violate rules.
• General: There is no need for substantial revision. These regulations provide necessary/clear guidance to industry and drivers. The regulations are written consistent with plain language guidelines, are cost effective, and impose the least economic burden to industry.
• Section 610: FMCSA analyzed 49 CFR part 385, and found no SEIOSNOSE. 49 CFR part 385 provides guidance on safety fitness procedures including monitoring, new entrants, intermodal equipment, and hazardous materials safety permits. The rule addresses safety initiatives whose cost are required by 49 CFR parts 360, 367, 387, and 390. These rules do not result in a SEISNOSE, because they do not introduce new costs to small carriers.
• General: There is no need for substantial revision as these regulations provide necessary guidance to the industry. The regulations are written consistent with plain language guidelines and impose the least economic burden to industry.
Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FRA's plain language review of this rule indicates no need for substantial revision.
Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
General: No changes are needed. These regulations are cost effective and impose the least burden. FRA's plain language review of this rule indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: This rule is expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SEIOSNOSE). These small entities are approximately 737 short line railroads. As part of the rulemaking process, FRA conducted a review of the impact that this rulemaking could have on small businesses and whether any opportunities may exist to reduce the burdens on small railroads without compromising safety.
General: The rule prescribes minimum safety requirements for railroad track that is part of the general railroad system of transportation. The objective of the rule is to enhance the safety of rail transportation, protecting both those traveling and working on the system and those off the system who might be adversely affected by a rail incident. FRA's plain language review of this rule indicates no need for substantial revision.
Section 610: There is a SEIOSNOSE. As part of the rulemaking process, FRA conducted a review of the impact that this rulemaking could have on small businesses and whether any opportunities may exist to reduce the burdens on small railroads without compromising safety.
General: FRA's plain language review of this rule indicates no need for substantial revision.
Section 610: There is a SEIOSNOSE.
General: No changes are needed. This rule already limits economic impact on small entities through Appendix D of the rule. FRA's plain language review of this rule indicates no need for substantial revision.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended (sections 601 through 612 of title 5, United States Code), requires Federal regulatory agencies to analyze all proposed and final rules to determine their economic impact on small entities, which include small businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions. Section 610 requires government agencies to periodically review all regulations that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SEISNOSE).
In complying with this section, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most Department of Transportation (DOT) modes. As such, FTA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the analysis year, the listed rules will be analyzed to identify those with a SEISNOSE. During the review year, each rule identified in the analysis year as having a SEISNOSE will be reviewed in accordance with Section 610(b) to determine if it should be continued without change or changed to minimize the impact on small entities.
• Section 610: FTA conducted a Section 610 review of 49 CFR part 609 and determined that it would not result in a SEISNOSE within the meaning of the RFA. The rule ensures that applicants for financial assistance under section 5307 of title 49, United States Code, as a condition of receiving such assistance, provide half-fares for elderly and handicapped persons during non-peak hours for transportation utilizing or involving the facilities and equipment of the project financed with FTA assistance.
• General: No changes are needed. FTA estimated the costs and projected benefits of the rule and believes it is cost-effective and imposes the least burden. FTA's plain language review of this rule indicates no need for substantial revision.
• Section 610: FTA conducted a Section 610 review of 49 CFR part 640 and determined that it would not result in a SEISNOSE within the meaning of the RFA. The regulation is a cross-reference to the Department of Transportation's Credit Assistance for Surface Transportation Projects regulation at 49 CFR part 80. FTA does not own the cross-referenced regulation and, accordingly, cannot make changes
• General: No changes are needed. The regulation is a cross-reference to a DOT regulation.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: The purpose of this rule is to prescribe the requirements and procedures for administrative claims against the United States involving the Maritime Administration under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The agency has determined that the rule is cost-effective and imposes the least possible burden on small entities. MARAD's plain language review of this rule indicates no need of substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: The purpose of this rule is to govern practice and procedure in regulating interest in or control of Documented Vessels owned by Citizens of the United States to Noncitizens and transactions involving certain maritime interests in time of war or national emergency. The agency has determined that the rule is cost-effective and imposes the least possible burden on small entities. MARAD's plain language review of this rule indicates no need of substantial revision.
• Section 610: There is no SEIOSNOSE.
• General: The purpose of this rule is to govern practice and procedure to all participants in financial assistance programs administered by the Maritime Administration. The agency has determined that the rule is cost-effective and imposes the least possible burden on small entities. MARAD's plain language review of this rule indicates no need of substantial revision.
• General: PHMSA has reviewed these parts and found that while these parts do not have SEISNOSE, they could be streamlined to reflect new technologies and updated to reflect current practices. Therefore, PHMSA has initiated deregulatory rulemakings to reduce the compliance burdens of parts 178, 179, and 180. Further, PHMSA's plain language review of these parts indicates no need for substantial revision. Where confusing or ambiguous language has been identified, PHMSA plans to propose or finalize revisions in rulemakings.
As an example, the Modal Regulatory Reforms Initiatives, 2137-AF41, rulemaking action is part of PHMSA's response to clarify current regulatory requirements and address public comments received to the Department's regulatory reform and infrastructure notices. This rulemaking also proposes to address a variety of petitions for rulemaking, specific to modal stakeholders, and other issues identified by PHMSA during its regulatory review.
The impact that the 2137-AF41 rulemaking will have on small entities is not expected to be significant. The rulemaking is based on PHMSA's initiatives and correspondence with the regulated community, as well as PHMSA's consultation with its modal partners, including FMCSA, FRA, and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). The proposed changes are generally intended to provide regulatory relief or clarity and, as a result, positive economic benefits to shippers, carriers, and packaging manufacturers and testers, including small entities.
In conclusion, many companies are expecting to realize economic benefits, because of the proposed amendments in the 2137-AF41 rulemaking. The proposed amendments are expected to result in an overall net cost savings and ease the regulatory compliance burden for shippers, carriers, manufacturers, and requalifiers, specifically those modal-specific packaging and requalification requirements. This rulemaking is one example of PHMSA's review of rulemakings which ensures that our rules do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Department of the Treasury.
Semiannual regulatory agenda and annual regulatory plan.
This notice is given pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), which require the publication by the Department of a semiannual agenda of regulations. E.O. 12866 also requires the publication by the Department of a regulatory plan for the upcoming fiscal year. The purpose of the agenda is to provide advance information about pending regulatory activities and encourage public participation in the regulatory process.
The Agency contact identified in the item relating to that regulation.
The semiannual regulatory agenda includes regulations that the Department has issued or expects to issue and rules currently in effect that are under departmental or bureau review. For this edition of the regulatory agenda, the most important significant regulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the
The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
(1) Rules that are in the regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that have been identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
The Department has listed in this agenda all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication, except for technical, minor, and routine actions. On occasion, a regulatory matter may be inadvertently left off of the agenda or an emergency may arise that requires the Department to initiate a regulatory action not yet on the agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. For most entries, Treasury includes a projected date for the next rulemaking action; however, the date is an estimate and is not a commitment to publish on the projected date. In addition, some agenda entries are marked as “withdrawn” when there has been no publication activity. Withdrawal of a rule from the agenda does not necessarily mean that a rule will not be included in a future agenda but may mean that further consideration is warranted and that the regulatory action is unlikely in the next 12 months.
Public participation in the rulemaking process is the foundation of effective regulations. For this reason, the Department invites comments on all regulatory and deregulatory items included in the agenda and invites input on items that should be included in the semiannual agenda.
Emily Boyes,
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This document sets forth the regulatory agenda of the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. This agenda is issued in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The agenda lists regulations that are currently under development or review or that the Committee expects to have under development or review during the next 12 months. The purpose for publishing this agenda is to advise the public of the Committee's current and future regulatory actions.
For further information on the agenda in general, contact Shelly Hammond, Director, Contracting and Policy, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, VA 22202; (703) 603-2127.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), each agency is required to prepare an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) has a similar agenda requirement (5 U.S.C. 602). Under the law, the agenda must list any regulation that is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Office of Management and Budget has issued guidelines prescribing the form and content of the regulatory agenda. Under those guidelines, the agenda must list all regulatory activities being conducted or reviewed in the next 12 months and provide certain specified information on each regulation. All of the items on this agenda are current or projected rulemakings.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions online at
• Regulations in the Semiannual Agenda that are under development, completed, or canceled since the last agenda; and
• Reviews of regulations with small business impacts under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
If you have questions or comments about a particular action, please get in touch with the agency contact listed in each agenda entry. If you have general questions about the Semiannual Agenda, please contact: Caryn Muellerleile (
EPA is committed to a regulatory strategy that effectively achieves the Agency's mission of protecting the environment and the health, welfare, and safety of Americans while also supporting economic growth, job creation, competitiveness, and innovation. EPA publishes the Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions to update the public about regulatory activity undertaken in support of this mission. In the Semiannual Agenda, EPA provides notice of our plans to review, propose, and issue regulations.
Additionally, EPA's Semiannual Agenda includes information about rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and review of those regulations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
In this document, EPA explains in greater detail the types of actions and information available in the Semiannual Agenda and actions that are currently undergoing review specifically for impacts on small entities.
“E-Agenda,” ”online regulatory agenda,” and ”semiannual regulatory agenda” all refer to the same comprehensive collection of information that, until 2007, was published in the
“Regulatory Flexibility Agenda” refers to a document that contains information about regulations that may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to publish this document in the
“Unified Regulatory Agenda” refers to the collection of all agencies' agendas with an introduction prepared by the Regulatory Information Service Center facilitated by the General Service Administration.
“Regulatory Agenda Preamble” refers to the document you are reading now. It appears as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and introduces both EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and the e-Agenda.
“610 Review” as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act means a periodic review within ten years of promulgating a final rule that has or may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA maintains a list of these actions at
A number of environmental laws authorize EPA's actions, including but not limited to:
• Clean Air Act (CAA),
• Clean Water Act (CWA),
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund),
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Not only must EPA comply with environmental laws, but also administrative legal requirements that apply to the issuance of regulations, such as: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), and the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
EPA also meets a number of requirements contained in numerous Executive Orders: 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017); 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011); 12898, “Environmental Justice” (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994); 13045, “Children's Health Protection” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997); 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999); 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000); 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
You can make your voice heard by getting in touch with the contact person
Instructions on how to submit your comments through
EPA believes its actions will be more cost effective and protective if the development process includes stakeholders working with us to help identify the most practical and effective solutions to environmental problems. EPA encourages you to become involved in its rule and policymaking process. For more information about EPA's efforts to increase transparency, participation and collaboration in EPA activities, please visit
EPA includes regulations in the e-Agenda. However, there is no legal significance to the omission of an item from the agenda, and EPA generally does not include the following categories of actions:
• Administrative actions such as delegations of authority, changes of address, or phone numbers;
• Under the CAA: Revisions to state implementation plans; equivalent methods for ambient air quality monitoring; deletions from the new source performance standards source categories list; delegations of authority to states; area designations for air quality planning purposes;
• Under FIFRA: Registration-related decisions, actions affecting the status of currently registered pesticides, and data call-ins;
• Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Actions regarding pesticide tolerances and food additive regulations;
• Under RCRA: Authorization of State solid waste management plans; hazardous waste delisting petitions;
• Under the CWA: State Water Quality Standards; deletions from the section 307(a) list of toxic pollutants; suspensions of toxic testing requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); delegations of NPDES authority to States;
• Under SDWA: Actions on State underground injection control programs.
Meanwhile, the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda includes:
• Actions likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
• Rules the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA.
EPA has three ongoing 610 reviews in this Agenda.
Online, you can choose how to sort the agenda entries by specifying the characteristics of the entries of interest in the desired individual data fields for both the
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1. Prerule Stage—EPA's prerule actions generally are intended to determine whether the agency should initiate rulemaking. Prerulemakings may include anything that influences or leads to rulemaking; this would include Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs), studies or analyses of the possible need for regulatory action.
2. Proposed Rule Stage—Proposed rulemaking actions include EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRMs); these proposals are scheduled to publish in the
3. Final Rule Stage—Final rulemaking actions are those actions that EPA is scheduled to finalize and publish in the
4. Long-Term Actions—This section includes rulemakings for which the next scheduled regulatory action (such as publication of a NPRM or final rule) is twelve or more months into the future. We urge you to explore becoming involved even if an action is listed in the Long-Term category.
5. Completed Actions—EPA's completed actions are those that have been promulgated and published in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Agenda entries include only the nine categories of information that are required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and by
E-Agenda entries include:
a. Economically Significant: Under Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
b. Other Significant: A rulemaking that is not economically significant but is considered significant for other reasons. This category includes rules that may:
1. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
2. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
3. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles in Executive Order 12866.
c. Substantive, Nonsignificant: A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is not Significant, Routine and Frequent, or Informational/Administrative/Other.
d. Routine and Frequent: A rulemaking that is a specific case of a recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal
e. Informational/Administrative/Other: An action that is primarily informational or pertains to an action outside the scope of Executive Order 12866.
a. Deregulatory: When finalized, an action is expected to have total costs less than zero;
b. Regulatory: The action is either
(i) a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, or
(ii) a significant guidance document (
c. Fully or Partially Exempt: The action has been granted, or is expected to be granted, a full or partial waiver under one or more of the following circumstances:
(i) It is expressly exempt by Executive Order 13771 (issued with respect to a “military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States”; or related to “agency organization, management, or personnel”), or
(ii) it addresses an emergency such as critical health, safety, financial, or non-exempt national security matters (offset requirements may be exempted or delayed), or
(iii) it is required to meet a statutory or judicial deadline (offset requirements may be exempted or delayed), or
(iv) expected to generate de minimis costs;
d. Not subject to, not significant: is a NPRM or final rule AND is neither an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action nor an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action;
e. Other: At the time of designation, either the available information is too preliminary to determine Executive Order 13771 status or other reasonable circumstances preclude a preliminary Executive Order 13771 designation.
f. Independent agency: Is an action an independent agency anticipates issuing and thus is not subject to Executive Order 13771.
The
Some actions listed in the Agenda include a URL for an EPA-maintained website that provides additional information about the action.
EPA maintains a list of its deregulatory actions under development, as well as those that are
When EPA publishes either an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Section 610 of the RFA requires that an agency review, within 10 years of promulgation, each rule that has or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. At this time, EPA has three 610 reviews ongoing.
EPA has established public dockets for these 610 reviews. While comments for these reviews are no longer being accepted, submitted comments can be viewed at
For each of EPA's rulemakings, consideration is given to whether there will be any adverse impact on any small entity. EPA attempts to fit the regulatory requirements, to the extent feasible, to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation.
Under the RFA as amended by SBREFA, the Agency must prepare a formal analysis of the potential negative impacts on small entities, convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage) unless the Agency certifies a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For more detailed information about the Agency's policy and practice with respect to implementing the RFA/SBREFA, please visit EPA's RFA/SBREFA website at
Finally, we would like to thank those of you who choose to join with us in making progress on the complex issues involved in protecting human health and the environment. Collaborative efforts such as EPA's open rulemaking process are a valuable tool for addressing the problems we face, and the regulatory agenda is an important part of that process.
Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Julia Burch, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7405M, Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7405M, Washington, DC 20460,
Lisa Christ, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,
General Services Administration (GSA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions that GSA plans for the next 12 months and those that were completed since the fall 2019 edition. This agenda was developed under the guidelines of Executive Orders 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” GSA's purpose in publishing this agenda is to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. GSA also invites interested persons to recommend existing significant regulations for review to determine whether they should be modified or eliminated. Published proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking website at
Since the fall 2007 edition, the internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Lois Mandell, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001, 202-501-2735.
This document of the General Services Administration was signed on September 4, 2020, by Jessica Salmoiraghi, Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by the General Services Administration. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the General Services Administration has delegated authority to the undersigned RISC Federal Register Liaison Officer to re-sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the General Services Administration. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
This rule will require contracting officers to incorporate applicable GSA cybersecurity requirements within the statement of work to ensure compliance with Federal cybersecurity requirements and implement best practices for preventing cyber incidents. Contract requirements for internal information systems, external contractor systems, cloud systems, and mobile systems will be covered by this rule. This rule will also update existing GSAR provision 552.239-70, Information Technology Security Plan and Security Authorization, and GSAR clause 552.239-71, Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources, to only require the provision and clause when the contract will involve information or information systems connected to a GSA network.
Office of Management and Budget.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is publishing its semiannual agenda of upcoming activities for Federal regulations, OMB Guidance, Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Policy Letters, and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Board Cost Accounting Standards.
OMB Guidance and OFPP Policy Letters are published in accordance with OMB's internal procedures for implementing Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)). OMB policy guidelines are issued under authority derived from several sources, including: Subtitles I, II, and V of title 31, U.S. Code; Executive Order 11541; and other specific authority as cited. OMB Guidance and OFPP Policy Letters communicate guidance and instructions of a continuing nature to executive branch agencies. As such, most OMB Guidance and OFPP Policy Letters are not regulations. Nonetheless, because these issuances are typically of interest to the public, they are generally published in the
CASB Cost Accounting Standards are issued under authority derived from 41 U.S.C. 1501
For purposes of this agenda, we have excluded directives that outline procedures to be followed in connection with the President's budget and legislative programs, as well as directives that affect only the internal functions, management, or personnel of Federal agencies.
See the agency contact person listed for each entry in the agenda, c/o Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. On the overall agenda, contact Laura Dennehy, (202) 579-6597, at the above address.
Lisa Barr, Office of Management and Budget,
Railroad Retirement Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda contains a list of regulations that the Board is developing or proposes to develop in the next 12 months and regulations that are scheduled to be reviewed in that period.
844 North Rush Street, Chicago, IL 60611-1275.
Marguerite P. Dadabo, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Railroad Retirement Board, (312) 751-4945, Fax (312) 751-7102, TDD (312) 751-4701.
By Authority of the Board.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This semiannual Regulatory Agenda (Agenda) is a summary of current and projected regulatory and deregulatory actions and completed actions of the Small Business Administration (SBA). This summary information is intended to enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, SBA's regulatory and deregulatory activities. Accordingly, SBA invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
Please direct general comments or inquiries to K. Bundy, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6585,
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual regulatory activities identified in this Agenda to the individual listed in the summary of the regulation as the point of contact for that regulation.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires SBA to publish in the
SBA is fully committed to implementing the Administration's regulatory reform policies, as established by Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017) and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (February 24, 2017). In order to fully implement the goal of these executive orders, SBA seeks feedback from the public in identifying any SBA regulations affected parties believe impose unnecessary burdens or costs that exceed their benefits; eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation; or are ineffective or outdated.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of regulations being developed by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council in compliance with Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This agenda is being published to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. The Regulatory Secretariat Division has attempted to list all regulations pending at the time of publication, except for minor and routine or repetitive actions; however, unanticipated requirements may result in the issuance of regulations that are not included in this agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the dates shown.
Published proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking website at
Lois Mandell, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001, 202-501-4755.
DoD, GSA, and NASA, under their several statutory authorities, jointly issue and maintain the FAR through periodic issuance of changes published in the
The electronic version of the FAR, including changes, can be accessed on the FAR website at
Paragraph (b) requires the FAR Council to review the FAR to assess every regulation that requires a specific clause in contracts for commercial products or commercial services, unless the regulation is required by law or Executive Order. Paragraph (b) also requires that revisions to the FAR be proposed to eliminate those regulations unless the FAR Council makes a determination not to eliminate a regulation.
Paragraph (c) requires the FAR Council to review the FAR to assess every regulation that requires a prime contractor to include a specific clause in subcontracts for commercially available off-the-shelf items, unless the clause is required by law or Executive Order. Paragraph (c) also requires that revisions to the FAR be proposed to eliminate those regulations unless the FAR Council makes a determination not to eliminate a regulation.
The Government uses suspension and debarment procedures to exercise business judgment. These procedures give Federal officials a discretionary means to exclude parties from participation in certain transactions, while affording those parties due process.
In its final rule, SBA has clarified that, as a general matter, its small business contracting regulations apply regardless of the place of performance. In light of these changes, there is a need to amend the FAR, both to support the changes to SBA's regulation, and to give agencies the tools they need, especially the ability to use set-asides to maximize opportunities for small businesses overseas.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”), in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, is publishing a semiannual agenda of rulemakings that the Commission expects to propose or promulgate over the next year. The Commission welcomes comments from small entities and others on the agenda.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, (202) 418-5964,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601,
1. A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
2. A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda, the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
3. The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in the agenda.
Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an agenda of rulemakings that it presently expects may be considered during the course of the next year. Subject to a determination for each rule, it is possible as a general matter that some of these rules may have some impact on small entities.
The Commission's Fall 2020 regulatory flexibility agenda is included in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Joseph Otchin,
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is publishing this agenda as part of the Fall 2020 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The Bureau reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from November 2020 to November 2021. The next agenda will be published in spring 2021 and will update this agenda through spring 2022. Publication of this agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This information is current as of September 11, 2020.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.
A staff contact is included for each regulatory item listed herein. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The Bureau is publishing its fall 2020 Agenda as part of the Fall 2020 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda lists the regulatory matters that the Bureau reasonably anticipates having under consideration during the period from November 2020 to November 2021, as described further below.
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (Dodd-Frank Act), the Bureau has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, consumer education, and other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services. These authorities include the authority to issue regulations under more than a dozen Federal consumer financial laws, which transferred to the Bureau from seven Federal agencies on July 21, 2011. The Bureau's general purpose, as specified in section 1021(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, is to implement and enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive.
In addition, section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act specifies the objectives of the Bureau, including ensuring that, with respect to consumer financial products and services, consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions; consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination; outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens; that Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition; and markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.
As a general matter, the Bureau believes that it can best achieve these statutory purposes and objectives by using its various tools to focus on the prevention of consumer harm. With specific regard to rulemaking, the Bureau seeks to articulate clear rules of the road for regulated entities that promote compliance with the law, foster competition, increase transparency, and preserve fair markets for financial products and services. If Congress directs the Bureau to promulgate rules or address specific issues through rulemaking, the Bureau will comply with the law. If the Bureau has discretion, the Bureau will focus on preventing consumer harm by maximizing informed consumer choice, and by reducing unwarranted regulatory burden which can adversely affect competition and consumers' access to financial products and services. Consistent with these priorities and to enhance transparency, the Unified Agenda identifies the rulemaking activities in which the Bureau is likely to be engaged over the next 12 months and those that are contemplated in the ensuing year.
The Bureau is conducting the two remaining rulemakings mandated in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018, Public Law 115-174, 132 Stat. 1297 (EGRRCPA). As part of these rulemakings, the Bureau is working to maximize consumer welfare and achieve other statutory objectives through protecting consumers from harm and minimizing regulatory burden, including facilitating industry compliance with rules.
First, section 307 of the EGRRCPA amends the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to mandate that the Bureau prescribe certain regulations relating to “Property Assessed Clean Energy” (PACE) financing. As defined by EGRRCPA section 307, PACE financing results in a tax assessment on a consumer's real property and covers the costs of home improvements. The required regulations must carry out the purposes of TILA's ability-to-repay (ATR) requirements, currently in place for residential mortgage loans, with respect to PACE financing, and apply TILA's general civil liability provision for violations of the ATR requirements the Bureau will prescribe for PACE financing. The regulations must “account for the unique nature” of PACE financing. Section 307 of the EGRRCPA also specifically authorizes the collection of data and information necessary to support a PACE rulemaking. In March 2019 the Bureau issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and is continuing to engage with stakeholders and collect information for the rulemaking, including by pursuing quantitative data on the effect of PACE on consumers' financial outcomes.
Second, section 108 of the EGRRCPA directs the Bureau to conduct a rulemaking to exempt from the escrow requirement loans made by certain creditors with assets of $10 billion or less and meeting other criteria, adding to a 2013 rule issued by the Bureau under the Dodd-Frank Act that created an exemption for creditors with under $2 billion in assets and meeting other criteria. In anticipation of future rulemaking activity, the Bureau conducted, and in late summer 2019 released, a preliminary analysis of the number of lenders potentially impacted by implementation of the new exemption in section 108 of EGRRCPA. This analysis showed that a limited number of additional lenders would be exempt under section 108 of EGRRCPA once implemented by rule. The Bureau issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The Bureau is continuing certain other rulemakings described in its Spring 2020 Agenda to articulate clear rules of the road for regulated entities that promote compliance with the law, foster competition, increase transparency, and preserve fair markets for financial products and services.
Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require, subject to rules prescribed by the Bureau, financial institutions to collect, report, and make public certain information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. The Bureau hosted a symposium on small business data collection in November 2019 to facilitate its decisionmaking. In addition, in July 2020, the Bureau released a survey of lenders to obtain estimates of one-time costs lenders of varying sizes would incur to collect and report data pursuant to section 1071. In September 2020, the Bureau released an outline of proposals under consideration and alternatives considered in advance of convening a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy, to obtain feedback from representatives of small businesses on the likely impacts the rules the Bureau is considering proposing to implement section 1071 would have on small entities. The Bureau expects to convene a SBREFA panel in October 2020 and consistent with the Bureau's statutory obligations under SBREFA, will complete the panel report within 60 days of the panel's convening.
In addition, to consider concerns about possible unwarranted regulatory burden, the Bureau also issued an ANPRM in May 2019 concerning certain data points that are reported under the 2015 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) rule and coverage of certain business or commercial purpose loans. The Bureau expects to issue an NPRM in early 2021 to follow up on the ANPRM. The Bureau also expects to issue an NPRM in early 2021 addressing the public disclosure of HMDA data in light of consumer privacy interests, so that stakeholders can concurrently consider and comment on the collection and reporting of data points and public disclosure of those data points. This NPRM will follow up on the Bureau's 2018 final policy guidance regarding disclosure of the HMDA data. Until the Bureau promulgates a final rule, it anticipates that it will continue to disclose HMDA data in the manner detailed in the 2018 final policy guidance.
The Bureau also issued an NPRM in May 2019 that would prescribe rules under Regulation F to govern the activities of debt collectors, as that term is defined under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Bureau's proposal would, among other things, address communications in connection with debt collection; interpret and apply prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices in debt collection; and clarify requirements for certain consumer-facing debt collection disclosures. The proposal builds on the Bureau's research and pre-rulemaking activities regarding the debt collection market; the conduct of debt collectors remains a top source of complaints to the Bureau. The Bureau expects to issue a final rule in October 2020 with regard to the May 2019 NPRM. The Bureau has also engaged in testing of time-barred debt disclosures that were not the focus of the May 2019 proposal. In early 2020, after completing the testing, the Bureau published a supplemental NPRM related to time-barred debt disclosures. The Bureau expects to issue a final rule in December 2020 addressing disclosures related to the validation notice and time-barred debt.
In July 2019, the Bureau issued an ANPRM to solicit information about possible amendments to the qualified mortgage provisions of Regulation Z, which implement provisions of TILA. With certain exceptions, Regulation Z requires creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer's ability to repay any residential mortgage loan, and loans that meet Regulation Z's requirements for “qualified mortgages” obtain certain protections from liability. One category of qualified mortgages (QMs) covers certain loans that are eligible for purchase or guarantee by either the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). Under Regulation Z, this category of QMs (Temporary GSE QM or “Patch” loans) is scheduled to expire no later than January 10, 2021. In June, the Bureau proposed amendments to the definition of General QM that would move away from the 43 percent Debt-to-Income (DTI) requirement and instead establish an alternative, such as a pricing threshold (
The Bureau is participating in interagency rulemaking processes with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency to develop regulations to implement the amendments made by the Dodd-Frank Act to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) concerning appraisals. The FIRREA amendments require implementing regulations for quality control standards for automated valuation models (AVMs). These standards are designed to ensure a high level of confidence in the estimates produced by the valuation models, protect against the manipulation of data, seek to avoid conflicts of interest, require random sample testing and reviews, and account for any other such factor that the Agencies determine to be appropriate. The Agencies will continue to work to develop a proposed rule to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's AVM amendments to FIRREA.
The Bureau is continuing a rulemaking to address the anticipated expiration of the LIBOR index, which the UK Financial Conduct Authority has stated that it cannot guarantee the publication of beyond the end of 2021. The Bureau's work is designed to facilitate compliance by open-end and
The Bureau anticipates issuing an NPRM in spring 2021 to consider possible amendments to the Bureau's mortgage servicing rules to address actions required of servicers working with borrowers affected by natural disasters or other emergencies. In January 2013, the Bureau issued final mortgage servicing rules, pursuant to Regulations X and Z, implementing numerous provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and TILA, as amended by title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau has since made various corrections, clarifications, and other amendments to the January 2013 rules. In June 2020, the Bureau issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) amending aspects of the mortgage servicing rules to address the exigencies of COVID-19. Comments received on the IFR and information gathered through the Bureau's market monitoring suggest that the rules may need additional updates to address natural disasters or other emergencies.
Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that, subject to rules prescribed by the Bureau, covered persons shall make available to consumers, upon request, transaction data and other information concerning a consumer financial product or service that the consumer obtains from a covered person. Section 1033 also states that the Bureau shall prescribe by rule standards to promote the development and use of standardized formats for information made available to consumers. In November 2016, the Bureau issued a Request for Information seeking comment from the public to better understand the consumer benefits and risks associated with market developments that rely on access to consumer financial account and account-related information. In October 2017, the Bureau issued Consumer Protection Principles for Consumer-Authorized Financial Data Sharing and Aggregation to express the Bureau's vision for the data aggregation market. The Bureau hosted a symposium on consumer authorized financial data sharing in February 2020. In fall 2020, the Bureau expects to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning consumer data access to implement section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Bureau has decided to add two new items to its long-term regulatory agenda. This portion of the agenda focuses on potential regulatory actions that an agency may engage in beyond the current fiscal year. First, the Bureau is adding an entry related to its TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosures (TRID) rule. The Dodd-Frank Act directed the Bureau to integrate the mortgage disclosures required under TILA and RESPA. In November 2013, the Bureau issued a final rule to implement this requirement (the TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosure or TRID rule). The Bureau amended the 2013 final rule on two occasions before its effective date, and the amended rule took effect on October 3, 2015. The Bureau subsequently amended the 2013 final rule in July 2017 and April 2018. The July 2017 Amendments took effect on October 10, 2017, and the April 2018 Amendments took effect on June 1, 2018. As noted below, in October 2020 the Bureau will publish a report of its assessment of the TRID rule, as amended when the rule took effect in October 2015, as required by section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau has received feedback—in response to a November 2019 Request for Information in connection with the TRID rule assessment, the Bureau's 2018 Calls for Evidence, and other Bureau outreach—suggesting that modifications of aspects of the TRID rule may make the rule more effective. As the Bureau continues to monitor market developments, the Bureau will evaluate possible policy responses to issues identified, including potential rulemaking, guidance, or other activities. Possible topics for consideration will be determined based on the findings in the Bureau's assessment report as well as other input the Bureau receives on the TRID rule.
Second, the Bureau has commenced research that focuses on providing information to consumers about the costs associated with payday loans. The goal of this research is to identify possible ways the Bureau may be able to improve consumer understanding and aid consumer decisionmaking around payday loans through rulemaking or other actions. The first phase of this research involves qualitative testing, which the Bureau anticipates completing by the end of September 2021. The results of the qualitative testing will inform the Bureau in deciding whether and how to move forward with quantitative testing that might support possible future rulemaking or other actions related to payday loan disclosures.
The Bureau is also actively reviewing existing regulations. Section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Bureau to conduct an assessment of each significant rule or order adopted by the Bureau under Federal consumer financial law and publish a report of each assessment not later than 5 years after the effective date of the subject matter or order. The Bureau expects to complete an assessment of its TRID rule and certain amendments in October 2020.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) also requires the Bureau to consider the effect on small entities of certain rules it promulgates. The Bureau published in May 2019 its plan for conducting reviews, consistent with section 610 of the RFA, of certain regulations which are believed to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Congress specified that the purpose of such reviews shall be to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of the applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of such small entities. In August 2020 the Bureau commenced its review pursuant to section 610 of the RFA of Regulation Z rules that implement the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. Specifically, the Bureau will review an interim final rule and three final rules published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) from July 2009 to April 2011.
Finally, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau is also continuing
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In this document, the Commission publishes its semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda. In addition, this document includes an agenda of regulatory actions that the Commission expects to be under development or review by the agency during the next year. This document meets the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866.
The Commission welcomes comments on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries. Submit comments to the Division of the Secretariat on or before April 30, 2021.
Caption comments on the regulatory agenda, “Regulatory Flexibility Agenda.” You can submit comments by email to:
For further information on the agenda, in general, contact Meridith L. Kelsch, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) contains several provisions intended to reduce unnecessary and disproportionate regulatory requirements on small businesses, small governmental organizations, and other small entities. Section 602 of the RFA requires each agency to publish, twice a year, a regulatory flexibility agenda containing “a brief description of the subject area of any rule which the agency expects to propose or promulgate which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 602. The agency must provide a summary of the nature of the rule, the objectives and legal basis for the rule, and an approximate schedule for acting on each rule for which the agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking.
In addition, Executive Order 12866,
The agenda contains a brief description and summary of each regulatory activity, including the objectives and legal basis for each; an approximate schedule of target dates, subject to revision, for the development or completion of each activity; and the name and telephone number of an agency official who is knowledgeable about items in the agenda.
The internet is the primary means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at:
Because agencies must publish in the
(1) Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the RFA, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA.
The entries in the Commission's printed agenda are limited to fields that contain information that the RFA requires in an agenda. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet.
The agenda reflects the Commission's assessment of the likelihood that the specified event will occur during the next year; the precise dates for each rulemaking are uncertain. New information, changes of circumstances, or changes in the law, may alter anticipated timing. In addition, you should not infer from this agenda a final determination by the Commission or its staff regarding the need for, or the substance of, any rule or regulation.
Federal Communications Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
Twice a year, in spring and fall, the Commission publishes in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Maura McGowan, Telecommunications Policy Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0990.
The Commission encourages public participation in its rulemaking process. To help keep the public informed of significant rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has prepared a list of important proceedings now in progress. The General Services Administration publishes the Unified Agenda in the
The following terms may be helpful in understanding the status of the proceedings included in this report:
Jerusha Burnett, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554,
The Spectrum Act requires that the BIA consist of a reverse auction “to determine the amount of compensation that each broadcast television licensee would accept in return for voluntarily relinquishing some or all of its spectrum usage rights” and a forward auction of licenses in the reallocated spectrum for flexible-use services, including mobile broadband. Broadcast television licensees who elected to voluntarily participate in the auction had three bidding options: Go off-the-air, share spectrum with another broadcast television licensee, or move channels to the upper or lower VHS band in exchange for receiving part of the proceeds from auctioning that spectrum to wireless providers. The Spectrum Act also authorized the Commission to reorganize the 600 MHz band following the BIA including, as necessary, reassigning full power and Class A television stations to new channels in order to clear the spectrum sold in the BIA. That post-auction reorganization (known as the repack) is currently underway and all of the stations who were assigned new channels are scheduled to have vacated their pre-auction channels by July 3, 2020, pursuant to a 10-phase transition schedule adopted by the Commission.
In May 2014, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that laid out the general framework for the BIA. The auction started on March 29, 2016, with the submission of initial commitments by eligible broadcast licensees. The BIA ended on April 13, 2017, with the release of the Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice that also marked the start of the 39-month transition period during which 987 of the full power and Class A television stations remaining on-the-air will transition their stations to their post-auction channel assignments in the reorganized television band. Pursuant to the Spectrum Act, the Commission will reimburse 957 of those full power and Class A stations for the reasonable costs associated with relocating to their post-auction channel assignments and will reimburse multichannel video programming distributors for their costs associated with continuing to carry the signals of those stations.
In March 2018, the Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 115-141, at Div. E, Title V, 511, 132 Stat. 348 (2018), codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452(j)-(n)) (the Reimbursement Expansion Act or REA), extended the deadline for reimbursement of eligible entities from April 2020 to no later than July 3, 2023, and also expanded the universe of entities eligible for reimbursement to include low-power television stations and TV translator stations displaced by the BIA for their reasonably incurred costs to relocate to a new channel, and FM broadcast stations for their reasonably incurred costs for facilities necessary to reasonably minimize disruption of service as a result of the post-auction reorganization of the television band. On March 15, 2019, the Commission adopted a Report and Order setting rules for the reimbursement of eligible costs to those newly eligible entities.
The NPRM proposes changes to improve disclosure of debris mitigation plans. The NPRM also makes proposals and seeks comment related to satellite disposal reliability and methodology, appropriate deployment altitudes in low-Earth-orbit, and on-orbit lifetime, with a particular focus on large NGSO satellite constellations. Other aspects of the NPRM include new rule proposals for geostationary orbit satellite (GSO) license term extension requests, and consideration of disclosure requirements related to several emerging technologies and new types of commercial operations, including rendezvous and proximity operations.
In the 2nd R&O, the Commission provided additional guidance to broadcasters deploying Next Gen TV.
In May 2016, the Commission released a Report and Order, FNPRM, and Order on Reconsideration (see Dockets 11-82 and 15-80). The Order on Reconsideration addressed outage reporting for events at airports, and the FNPRM sought comment on database sharing. The Commission received comments and replies in August and September 2016.
In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on a process for wireless providers to disable contraband wireless devices once they have been identified. The Commission also seeks comment on additional methods and technologies that might prove successful in combating contraband device use in correctional facilities, and on various other proposals related to the authorization process for CISs and their deployment.
The Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order addressed several Petitions for Reconsideration submitted in response to the Report and Order and resolved the outstanding issues raised in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The 2017 NPRM sought comment on limited changes to the rules governing Priority Access Licenses in the band, adjacent channel emissions limits, and public release of base station registration information.
The 2018 Report and Order addressed the issues raised in the 2017 NPRM and implemented changes rules governing Priority Access Licenses in the band and public release of base station registration information.
On July 2020, the Commission commenced an auction of Priority Access Licenses in the band.
In 1999, the Commission released the Numbering Resource Optimization Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) in CC Docket 99-200. The Notice examined and sought comment on several administrative and technical measures aimed at improving the efficiency with which telecommunications numbering resources are used and allocated. It incorporated input from the North American Numbering Council (NANC), a Federal advisory committee, which advises the Commission on issues related to number administration.
In the Numbering Resource Optimization First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRO First Report and Order), released on March 31, 2000, the Commission adopted a mandatory utilization data reporting requirement, a uniform set of categories of numbers for which carriers must report their utilization, and a utilization threshold framework to increase carrier accountability and incentives to use numbers efficiently. In addition, the Commission adopted a single system for allocating numbers in blocks of 1,000, rather than 10,000, wherever possible, and established a plan for national rollout of thousands-block number pooling. The Commission also adopted numbering resource reclamation requirements to ensure that unused numbers are returned to the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) inventory for assignment to other carriers. Also, to encourage better management of numbering resources, carriers are required, to the extent possible, to first assign numbering resources within thousands blocks (a form of sequential numbering).
In the NRO Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted a measure that requires all carriers to use at least 60 percent of their numbering resources before they may get additional numbers in a particular area. That 60 percent utilization threshold increases to 75 percent over the next three years. The Commission also established a 5-year term for the national pooling administrator and an auditing program to verify carrier compliance with the Commission's rules. Furthermore, the Commission declined to amend the existing Federal rules for area code relief or specify any new Federal guidelines for the implementation of area code relief. The Commission also declined to state a preference for either all-services overlays or geographic splits as a method of area code relief. Regarding mandatory nationwide 10-digit dialing, the Commission declined to adopt this measure at the present time. Furthermore, the Commission declined to mandate nationwide expansion of the “D digit” (the “N” of an NXX or central office code) to include zero or one, or to grant State commissions the authority to implement the expansion of the “D” digit as a numbering resource optimization measure presently.
In the NRO Third Report and Order, the Commission addressed national thousands-block number pooling administration issues, including declining to alter the implementation date for covered CMRS carriers to participate in pooling. The Commission also addressed Federal cost recovery for national thousands-block number pooling, and continued to require States to establish cost recovery mechanisms for costs incurred by carriers participating in pooling trials. The Commission reaffirmed the Months-To-Exhaust (MTE) requirement for carriers. The Commission declined to lower the utilization threshold established in the Second Report and Order, and declined to exempt pooling carriers from the utilization threshold. The Commission also established a safety valve mechanism to allow carriers that do not meet the utilization threshold in a given rate center to obtain additional numbering resources. In the NRO Third Report and Order, the Commission lifted the ban on technology-specific overlays (TSOs) and delegated authority to the Common Carrier Bureau, in consultation with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to resolve any such petitions. Furthermore, the Commission found that carriers who violate its numbering requirements, or fail to cooperate with an auditor conducting either a “for cause” or random audit, should be denied numbering resources in certain
In NRO Third Order on Recon in CC Docket No. 99-200, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 95-116, the Commission reversed its clarification that those requirements extend to all carriers in the largest 100 MSAs, regardless of whether they have received a request from another carrier to provide LNP. The Commission also sought comment on whether the Commission should again extend the LNP requirements to all carriers in the largest 100 MSAs, regardless of whether they receive a request to provide LNP. The Commission also sought comment on whether all carriers in the top 100 MSAs should be required to participate in thousands-block number pooling, regardless of whether they are required to be LNP capable. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether all MSAs included in Combined Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) on the Census Bureau's list of the largest 100 MSAs should be included on the Commission's list of the top 100 MSAs.
In the NRO Fourth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission reaffirmed that carriers must deploy LNP in switches within the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) for which another carrier has made a specific request for the provision of LNP. The Commission delegated the authority to State commissions to require carriers operating within the largest 100 MSAs that have not received a specific request for LNP from another carrier to provide LNP, under certain circumstances and on a case-by-case basis. The Commission concluded that all carriers, except those specifically exempted, are required to participate in thousands-block number pooling in accordance with the national rollout schedule, regardless of whether they are required to provide LNP, including commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers that were required to deploy LNP as of November 24, 2003. The Commission specifically exempted from the pooling requirement rural telephone companies and Tier III CMRS providers that have not received a request to provide LNP. The Commission also exempted from the pooling requirement carriers that are the only service provider receiving numbering resources in a given rate center. Additionally, the Commission sought further comment on whether these exemptions should be expanded to include carriers where there are only two service providers receiving numbering resources in the rate center. Finally, the Commission reaffirmed that the 100 largest MSAs are identified in the 1990 U.S. Census reports, as well as those areas included on any subsequent U.S. Census report of the 100 largest MSAs.
In the NRO Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission granted petitions for delegated authority to implement mandatory thousands-block pooling filed by the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, the Nebraska Public Service Commission, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and the Missouri Public Service Commission. In granting these petitions, the Commission permitted these States to optimize numbering resources and further extend the life of the specific numbering plan areas. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on whether it should delegate authority to all States to implement mandatory thousands-block number pooling consistent with the parameters set forth in the NRO Order.
In its 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to allow interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) providers to obtain telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and the Pooling Administrator, subject to certain requirements. The Commission also sought comment on a forward-looking approach to numbers for other types of providers and uses, including telematics and public safety, and the benefits and number exhaust risks of granting providers other than interconnected VoIP providers direct access.
In its 2015 Report and Order, the Commission established an authorization process to enable interconnected VoIP providers that choose to obtain access to North American Numbering Plan telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and/or the Pooling Administrator (Numbering Administrators), rather than through intermediaries. The Order also set forth several conditions designed to minimize number exhaust and preserve the integrity of the numbering system. Specifically, the Commission required interconnected VoIP providers obtaining numbers to comply with the same requirements applicable to carriers seeking to obtain numbers. The requirements included any State requirements pursuant to numbering authority delegated to the States by the Commission, as well as industry guidelines and practices, among others. The Commission also required interconnected VoIP providers to comply with facilities readiness requirements adapted to this context, and with numbering utilization and optimization requirements. In addition, as conditions to requesting and obtaining numbers directly from the Numbering Administrators, the Commission required interconnected VoIP providers to (1) provide the relevant State commissions with regulatory and numbering contacts when requesting numbers in those States, (2) request numbers from the Numbering Administrators under their own unique OCN, (3) file any requests for numbers with the relevant State commissions at least 30 days prior to requesting numbers from the Numbering Administrators, and (4) provide customers with the opportunity to access all abbreviated dialing codes (N11 numbers) in use in a geographic area. Finally, the Order also modified Commission's rules in order to permit VoIP Positioning Center providers to obtain pseudo-Automatic Number Identification codes directly from the Numbering Administrators for purposes of providing E911 services.
In 2016, the Commission issued a Report and Order extending the separations freeze for an additional 18 months until January 1, 2018. In 2017, the Joint Board issued a Recommended Decision recommending changes to the part 36 rules designed to harmonize them with the Commission's previous amendments to its part 32 accounting rules. In February 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing amendments to part 36 consistent with the Joint Board's recommendations. In October 2018, the Commission issued a Report and Order adopting each of the Joint Board's recommendations and amending the part 36 consistent with those recommendations. In July 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to extend the separations freeze for an additional 15 years and to provide rate-of-return carriers that had elected to freeze their category relationships a time limited opportunity to opt out of that freeze. In December 2018, the Commission issued a Report and Order extending the freeze for up to 6 years until December 31, 2024, and granting rate-of-return carriers that had elected to freeze their category relationships a one-time opportunity to opt out of that freeze.
The Fourth RCC Order completed the Commission's implementation of the RCC Act by adopting service quality standards for intermediate providers, as well as an exception to those standards for intermediate providers that qualify for the covered provider safe harbor in our existing rules. The Order also set forth procedures to enforce our intermediate provider requirements. Finally, the Fourth RCC Order adopted provisions to sunset the rural call completion data recording and retention requirements adopted in the First RCC Order one year after the effective date of the new intermediate provider service quality standards.
On June 13, 2017, the D.C. Circuit vacated the rate caps adopted in the Second Report and Order, as well as reporting requirements related to video visitation. The court held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over intrastate ICS calls and that the rate caps the Commission adopted for interstate calls were arbitrary and capricious. The court also remanded the Commission's caps on ancillary fees. On September 26, 2017, the court denied a petition for rehearing en banc. On December 21, 2017, the court issued two separate orders: One vacating the 2016 Order on Reconsideration insofar as it purports to set rate caps on inmate calling services, and one dismissing as moot challenges to the Commission's First Report and Order on ICS.
On February 4, 2020, the Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau released a Public Notice seeking to refresh the record on ancillary service charges imposed in connection with inmate calling services.
On August 6, 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order on Remand and a Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking responding to remands by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and proposing to comprehensively reform rates and charges for the inmate calling services within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Report and Order on Remand found that the Commission's five permitted ancillary service charges (1) automated payment fees; (2) fees for single-call and related services; (3) live agent fees; (4) paper bill/statement fees; and (5) third-party financial transaction fees generally, cannot be practically segregated between interstate and intrastate inmate telephone calls, except in a limited number of cases. Accordingly, the Commission prohibited inmate calling services providers from imposing ancillary service fees higher than the Commission's caps,or imposing fees for additional ancillary services unless imposed in connection with purely intrastate inmate telephone service calls. The Order also reinstated a rule prohibiting providers from marking up third-party fees for single-call services; reinstated rule language that prohibits providers from marking up mandatory taxes or fees that they pass on to inmate telephone service consumers; and amended certain of the inmate calling services rules consistent with the D.C. Circuit's mandates to reflect that the Commission's rate and fee caps on inmate calling service apply only to interstate and international inmate calling. The Fourth FNPRM proposes to substantially reduce the interstate rate cap for inmate telephone calls from the current interim rate caps of $0.21 per minute for debit or prepaid calls and $0.25 per minute for collect calls for all types of correctional facilities, to permanent rate caps of $0.14 per minute for all interstate calls from prisons and $0.16 for all interstate calls from jails. The Fourth FNPRM also proposes to adopt rate caps for international inmate calling services calls for the first time based on the proposed interstate rate caps, plus the amount that the provider must pay its underlying international service provider for an international call. It also proposes a waiver process for providers that believe the Commission's rate caps would not allow them to recover their costs of serving a particular facility or contract. Finally, it seeks comment on a further mandatory data collection to continue efforts to reform these rates and fees.
On February 23, 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that revised the part 32 USOA to substantially reduce accounting burdens for both price cap and rate-of-return carriers. First, the Order streamlines the USOA for all carriers. In addition, the USOA will be aligned more closely with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. Second, the Order allows price cap carriers to use GAAP for all regulatory accounting purposes as long as they comply with targeted accounting rules, which are designed to mitigate any impact on pole attachment rates. Alternatively, price cap carriers can elect to use GAAP accounting for all purposes other than those associated with pole attachment rates and continue to use the part 32 accounts for pole attachment rates for up to 12 years. Third, the Order addresses several miscellaneous issues, including referral to the Federal-State Joint Board on Separations the issue of examining jurisdictional separations rules in light of the reforms adopted to part 32.
On November 16, 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order (R&O), Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Wireline Infrastructure Order) that takes a number of actions and seeks comment on further actions designed to accelerate the deployment of next-generation networks and services through removing barriers to infrastructure investment.
The Wireline Infrastructure Order took a number of actions. First, the Report and Order revised the pole attachment rules to reduce costs for attachers, reforms the pole access complaint procedures to settle access disputes more swiftly, and increases access to infrastructure for certain types of broadband providers. Second, the Report and Order revised the section 214(a) discontinuance rules and the network change notification rules, including those applicable to copper retirements, to expedite the process for carriers seeking to replace legacy network infrastructure and legacy services with advanced broadband networks and innovative new services. Third, the Report and Order reversed a 2015 ruling that discontinuance authority is required for solely wholesale services to carrier-customers. Fourth, the Declaratory Ruling abandoned the 2014 “functional test” interpretation of when section 214 discontinuance applications are required, bringing added clarity to the section 214(a) discontinuance process for carriers and consumers alike. Finally, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sought comment on additional potential pole attachment reforms, reforms to the network change disclosure and section 214(a) discontinuance processes, and ways to facilitate rebuilding networks impacted by natural disasters. Various parties filed a Petition for Review of the Wireline Infrastructure Order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit denied the Petition on January 23, 2020 on the grounds that the parties lacked standing.
On June 7, 2018, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order (Wireline Infrastructure Second Report and Order) taking further actions designed to expedite the transition from legacy networks and services to next generation networks and advanced services that benefit the American public and to promote broadband deployment by further streamlining the section 214(a) discontinuance rules, network change disclosure processes, and part 68 customer notification process.
The Wireline Infrastructure NPRM, NOI, and RFC sought comment on additional issues not addressed in the November Wireline Infrastructure Order or the June Wireline Infrastructure Second Report and Order. It sought comment on changes to the Commission's pole attachment rules to: (1) Streamline the timeframe for gaining access to utility poles; (2) reduce charges paid by attachers for work done to make a pole ready for new attachments; and (3) establish a formula for computing the maximum pole attachment rate that may be imposed on an incumbent LEC.
The Wireline Infrastructure NPRM, NOI, and RFC also sought comment on whether the Commission should enact rules, consistent with its authority under section 253 of the Act, to promote the deployment of broadband infrastructure by preempting State and local laws that inhibit broadband deployment. It also sought comment on whether there are State laws governing the maintenance or retirement of copper facilities that serve as a barrier to deploying next-generation technologies and services that the Commission might seek to preempt.
Previously, in November 2014, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling that: (1) Proposed new backup power rules; (2) proposed new or revised rules for copper retirements and service discontinuances; and (3) adopted a functional test in determining what constitutes a service for purposes of section 214(a) discontinuance review. In August 2015, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that: (i) Lengthened and revised the copper retirement process; (ii) determined that a carrier must obtain Commission approval before discontinuing a service used as a wholesale input if the carrier's actions will discontinue service to a carrier-customer's retail end users; (iii) adopted an interim rule requiring incumbent LECs that seek to discontinue certain TDM-based wholesale services to commit to certain rates, terms, and conditions; (iv) proposed further revisions to the copper retirement discontinuance process; and (v) upheld the November 2014 Declaratory Ruling. In July 2016, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Order on Reconsideration that: (i) Adopted a new test for obtaining streamlined treatment when carriers seek Commission authorization to discontinue legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (ii) set forth consumer education requirements for carriers seeking to discontinue legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (iii) allowed notice to customers of discontinuance applications by email; (iv) required carriers to provide notice of discontinuance applications to Tribal entities; (v) made a technical rule change to create a new title for copper retirement notices and certifications; and (vi) harmonized the timeline for competitive LEC discontinuances caused by incumbent LEC network changes.
On August 2, 2018, the Commission adopted a Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling (Wireline Infrastructure Third Report and Order) establishing a new framework for the vast majority of pole attachments governed by Federal law by instituting a one-touch make-ready regime, in which a new attacher may elect to perform all simple work to prepare a pole for new wireline attachments in the communications space. This new framework includes safeguards to promote coordination among parties and ensures that new attachers perform work safely and reliably. The Commission retained its multi-party pole attachment process for attachments that are complex or above the communications space of a pole, but made significant modifications to speed deployment, promote accurate billing, expand the use of self-help for new attachers when attachment deadlines are missed, and reduce the likelihood of coordination failures that lead to unwarranted delays. The Commission also improved its pole attachment rules by codifying and redefining Commission precedent that requires utilities to allow attachers to overlash existing wires, thus maximizing the usable space on the pole; eliminating outdated disparities between the pole attachment rates that incumbent carriers must pay compared to other similarly-situated cable and telecommunications attachers; and clarifying that the Commission will preempt, on an expedited case-by-case basis, State and local laws that inhibit the rebuilding or restoration of broadband infrastructure after a disaster. The Commission also adopted a Declaratory Ruling that
The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, including cable companies that provide voice service, based on an assessment on their interstate and international end-user revenues. The Universal Service Administrative Company, or USAC, administers the four programs and collects monies for the Universal Service Fund under the direction of the FCC.
On February 7, 2020, the Commission launched $20 Billion Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.
On April 2, 2020, the Commission fought COVID-19 with $200M; Adopts Long-Term Connected Care Study.
On July 17, 2020, the Commission integrated provisions of the recently enacted Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Acts of 2019 into the existing supply chain rulemaking.
By using an auction, the FCC will ensure that sought-after numbers are awarded to the parties that value them most. In addition, the FCC will reserve certain 833 numbers for distribution to government and non-profit entities that request them for public health and safety purposes. The FCC will study the results of the auction to determine how to best use the mechanism to distribute toll-free numbers equitably and efficiently in the future as well. Revenues from the auction will be used to defray the cost of toll-free numbering administration, reducing the cost of numbering for all users. The Order establishing the toll-free number auction will also authorize and accommodate the use of a secondary market for numbers awarded at auction to further distribute these numbers to the entities that value them most. The Order also adopted several definitional and technical updates to improve clarity and flexibility in toll-free number assignment.
The Commission sought comment and then adopted auctions procedures and
On January 16, 2020, Somos released all of the 833 Auction data for public review. On March 13, 2020, the Bureau invited public comment on the 833 Auction in preparation for issuing a report on the lessons learned from the Auction. Comments were due on April 13, 2020. On July 14, 2020, the North American Numbering Council approved the Toll Free Assignment Modernization Working Group's report, Perspectives on the December 2019 Auction of Numbers in the 833 Numbering Plan Area.
On December 30, 2019, Congress enacted the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act. Along with numerous other provisions directed at addressing robocalls, the TRACED Act directs the Commission to require all voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the internet Protocol (IP) portions of their networks, and to implement an effective caller ID authentication framework in the non-IP portions of their networks. The TRACED Act further creates processes by which voice service providers may be exempt from this mandate if the Commission determines they have achieved certain implementation benchmarks, and by which voice service providers may be granted a delay in compliance based on a finding of undue hardship because of burdens or barriers to implementation or based on a delay in development of a caller ID authentication protocol for calls delivered over non-IP networks.
On March 31, 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WC Docket Nos. 17-97, 20-67). The Report and Order mandated that all originating and terminating voice service providers implement the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework in the IP portions of their networks by June 30, 2021. In the Further Notice the Commission sought comment on extending the STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate to intermediate providers. The Commission also sought comment on proposals to (1) grant an extension for compliance with the STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate for small voice service providers so long as those providers implement a robocall mitigation program; (2) require voice service providers using non-IP technology either to upgrade their networks to IP to enable STIR/SHAKEN implementation, or work to develop non-IP caller ID authentication technology and implement a robocall mitigation program in the interim; (3) establish a process whereby a voice service provider may be exempt from the STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate if the provider has achieved certain implementation benchmarks; (4) prohibit voice service providers from imposing line item charges on consumer and small business subscribers for caller ID authentication; and (5) propose and seek comment on measures to implement other TRACED Act provisions concerning caller ID authentication and access to number resources.
On August 14, 2019, the Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics submitted its report to Congress recommending that: (1) A 3-digit dialing code be used for a national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system; and (2) the Commission should initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider designating 988 as the 3-digit code.
On December 12, 2019, the Commission released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to designate 988 as a new, nationwide, 3-digit dialing code for a suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline. WC Docket No. 18-336. The NPRM proposes that calls made to 988 be directed to the existing National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, which is made up of an expansive network of over 170 crisis centers located across the United States, and to the Veterans Crisis Line. The NPRM also proposes to require all telecommunications carriers and interconnected VoIP service providers to make, within 18 months, any changes necessary to ensure that users can dial 988 to reach the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line.
On July 16, 2020, the Commission adopted an Order designating 988 as the 3-digit number to reach the Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line (800-273-TALK or 800-273-8255) and requiring all telecommunications carriers, interconnected voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, and one-way VoIP providers to make any network changes necessary to ensure that users can dial 988 to reach the Lifeline by July 16, 2022.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Board is issuing this agenda under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Board's Statement of Policy Regarding Expanded Rulemaking Procedures. The Board anticipates having under consideration regulatory matters as indicated below during the period November 1, 2020, through April 30, 2020. The next agenda will be published in spring 2021.
Comments about the form or content of the agenda may be submitted any time during the next 6 months.
Comments should be addressed to Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
A staff contact for each item is indicated with the regulatory description below.
The Board is publishing its fall 2020 agenda as part of the Fall 2020 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda also identifies rules the Board has selected for review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and public comment is invited on those entries. The complete Unified Agenda will be available to the public at the following website:
The Board's agenda is divided into four sections. The first, Proposed Rule Stage, reports on matters the Board may consider for public comment during the next 6 months. The second section, Final Rule Stage, reports on matters that have been proposed and are under Board consideration. The third section, Long-Term Actions, reports on matters where the next action is undetermined, 00/00/0000, or will occur more than 12 months after publication of the Agenda. And a fourth section, Completed Actions, reports on regulatory matters the Board has completed or is not expected to consider further. A dot (•) preceding an entry indicates a new matter that was not a part of the Board's previous agenda.
Barbara Bouchard, Senior Associate Director, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Washington, DC 20551,
Jay Schwarz, Special Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Claudia Von Pervieux, Senior Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Alison Thro, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Benjamin McDonough, Assistant General Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Daniel Hickman, Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20552,
Joshua Strazanac, Senior Attorney, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Anna Lee Hewko, Associate Director, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Washington, DC 20551,
Constance Horsley, Deputy Associate Director, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Washington, DC 20551,
Juan Climent, Assistant Director, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Washington, DC 20551,
Kathryn Ballintine, Manager, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Washington, DC 20551,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
We are publishing our semiannual regulatory agenda (the Agenda) in accordance with Public Law 96-354, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This Agenda issuance also contains our annual regulatory plan, which contains information on some of the more important regulatory actions that we are considering issuing in proposed or final form during Fiscal Year 2021. The NRC's complete Agenda, available on the Office of Management and Budget's website at
Submit comments on rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda by April 30, 2021.
Submit comments on any rulemaking activity in the Agenda by the date and methods specified in the
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Cindy Bladey, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3280; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0197 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
○ For completed rulemaking activities go to
○ For active rulemaking activities go to
○ For long-term rulemaking activities go to
Please include Docket ID NRC-2020-0197 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which an agency has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. The Agenda reports rulemaking activities in three major categories: Completed, active, and long-term. Completed rulemaking activities are those that were completed since publication of an agency's last Agenda; active rulemaking activities are those that an agency currently plans to have an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Proposed Rule, or a Final Rule issued within the next 12 months; and long-term rulemaking activities are rulemaking activities under development but for which an agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication of the current edition of the Unified Agenda.
The NRC assigns a “Regulation Identifier Number” (RIN) to a rulemaking activity when our Commission initiates a rulemaking and approves a rulemaking plan, or when the NRC staff begins work on a Commission delegated rulemaking that does not require a rulemaking plan. The Office of Management and Budget uses this number to track all relevant documents throughout the entire “lifecycle” of a particular rulemaking activity. The NRC reports all rulemaking activities in the Agenda that have been assigned a RIN and meet the definition
The information contained in this Agenda is updated to reflect any action that has occurred on a rulemaking activity since publication of our last Agenda on, August 26, 2020 (85 FR 52858). Specifically, the information in this Agenda has been updated through September 4, 2020. The NRC provides additional information on planned rulemaking and petition for rulemaking activities, including priority and schedule, on our website at
The date for the next scheduled action under the heading “Timetable” is the date the next regulatory action for the rulemaking activity is scheduled to be published in the
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to conduct a review within 10 years of promulgation of those regulations that have or will have a
The comment period on the NRC's last Agenda (published on, August 26, 2020 (85 FR 52858)) will close on September 25, 2020.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing the Chairman's agenda of rulemaking actions pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164) (Sep. 19, 1980). The items listed in the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for Fall 2020 reflect only the priorities of the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and do not necessarily reflect the view and priorities of any individual Commissioner.
Information in the agenda was accurate on October 7, 2020, the date on which the Commission's staff completed compilation of the data. To the extent possible, rulemaking actions by the Commission since that date have been reflected in the agenda. The Commission invites questions and public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
The Commission is now printing in the
The Commission's complete RFA agenda will be available online at
Comments should be received on or before April 30, 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 to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Sarit Klein, Office of the General Counsel, 202-551-5037.
The RFA requires each Federal agency, twice each year, to publish in the
The following abbreviations for the acts administered by the Commission are used in the agenda:
The Commission invites public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
By the Commission.
Patrick Gilmore, Deputy Chief Accountant, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549,
Surface Transportation Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board is publishing the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for fall 2020.
A contact person is identified for each of the rules listed below.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
(1) A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(2) A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda pursuant to paragraph (1), the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
(3) The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in paragraph (1).
Accordingly, a list of proceedings appears below containing information about subject areas in which the Board is currently conducting rulemaking proceedings or may institute such proceedings in the near future. It also contains information about existing regulations being reviewed to determine whether to propose modifications through rulemaking.
The agenda represents the Chairman's best estimate of rules that may be considered over the next 12 months, but does not necessarily reflect the views of any other individual Board Member. However, section 602(d) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 602(d), provides: “Nothing in [section 602] precludes an agency from considering or acting on any matter not included in a Regulatory Flexibility Agenda or requires an agency to consider or act on any matter listed in such agenda.”
The Chairman is publishing the agency's Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for fall 2020 as part of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Unified Agenda is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. The Board is participating voluntarily in the program to assist OMB and has included rulemaking proceedings in the Unified Agenda beyond those required by the RFA.
By the Board, Chairman Begeman.
Francis O'Connor, Deputy Director, Office of Economics, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001,
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda contains the proposed regulatory actions that the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting Council or FPISC) plans to undertake in the 12 months following the Permitting Council's spring 2020 edition of its semiannual regulatory agenda, which included the Permitting Council's previous regulatory agenda. The Permitting Council developed this agenda consistent with Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Executive Order 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.”
John Cossa, General Counsel, Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, Office of the Executive Director, 1800 G Street NW, Suite 2400, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 255-6936,
Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41), 42 U.S.C. 4370m
The Permitting Council's complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
(1) Rules that are included in the regulatory flexibility agenda pursuant to the RFA because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that have been identified for periodic review under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 610.
Printing of the semiannual regulatory agenda entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the RFA's Unified Agenda requirements.