Agricultural Marketing Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Policy statement; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an Evidence-Building and Evaluation Policy Statement that describes the general standards that guide the NRC's “evidence-building” activities, consistent with the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018. The policy statement is intended to provide agency personnel and stakeholders with a clear understanding of the expectations related to the NRC's standards for evidence-building activities, which includes analyses, research, assessments, and evaluations performed by the agency for programmatic, operational, regulatory, and policy decision making. These standards include rigor, relevance and utility, transparency, collaboration, independence and objectivity, and ethics.
This policy statement is effective on June 3, 2021.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0262 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:
•
•
•
Matthew Meyer, Office of the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-6198, email:
The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (“Evidence Act”) became law on January 14, 2019 (Pub. L. 115-435), to enhance evidence-building activities, make data more accessible, and strengthen privacy protections.
The Evidence Act focuses on the importance of sound evidence-building, which includes evaluation, to make informed evidence-based decisions. The evaluation standards developed by the interagency council, including an additional standard developed by the NRC (collaboration), are applicable to all of the NRC's evidence-building activities.
Historically, the NRC has relied on high-quality evidence obtained from external entities and through its own capacity. In recent years the agency has begun evidence-building activities to support licensing new or novel nuclear technologies, including advanced, non-light water reactor designs; accident tolerant nuclear fuel; and digital instrumentation and controls.
The NRC published the Proposed Evaluation Policy Statement in the
These comments were generally supportive of the policy statement and the NRC's commitment to ensuring that its regulatory decisions are supported with evidence and sound technical bases. However, commenters also requested that the NRC clarify the applicability of the policy statement to evidence-building activities other than “evaluation” as that term is defined in the Evidence Act (5 U.S.C. 311(3)), such as licensing, inspection, rulemaking, generic communication, and other regulatory activities (including backfitting analyses, and environmental reviews performed under the National Environmental Policy Act). The NRC agrees and has revised the proposed policy statement to clarify that the general standards articulated in the policy statement apply to all agency “evidence-building” activities. This includes not only “evaluations” conducted to review the effectiveness and efficiency of NRC programs, policies, and organizations, but other types of evidence-building such as regulatory analyses, compliance analyses, and performance assessments. A complete table of the comments received on the proposed policy statement and NRC staff responses to those comments is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML21070A196.
This policy statement is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).
This Policy Statement does not contain new or amended information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The text of the Evidence-Building and Evaluation Policy statement is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The following attachment will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations:
The purpose of this Evidence-Building and Evaluation Policy Statement is to describe the general standards that govern the NRC's planning and conduct of evidence-building. Evidence-building includes activities such as analysis, assessment, research, and program evaluation (evaluation).
The NRC is an evidence-based organization with a culture of continuous learning and improvement. The NRC's evidence-building activities use objective technical analyses and assessments to document decisions with explicitly stated rationale. Furthermore, the NRC commits to implementing the standards of rigor; relevance and utility; transparency; collaboration; independence and objectivity; and ethics in the conduct of its evidence-building activities. This policy statement describes these general standards.
The Commission, as a collegial body, formulates policies, develops regulations governing nuclear reactor and nuclear material safety, issues orders to licensees, and adjudicates legal matters. The collegial decision-making process results in actions reflecting the collective judgment of a group aided by professional and administrative staff and advisory committees, such as the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Strict requirements govern the admission and consideration of “evidence” when the Commission acts in its adjudicatory capacity. This policy applies to the NRC's non-adjudicatory functions.
The NRC's Principles of Good Regulation, which include independence, efficiency, clarity, reliability, and openness, have guided the agency's regulatory activities and decisions using evidence and scientific methods. The principles focus on meeting the agency's important safety and security mission while appropriately considering the interests of stakeholders, including licensees; State, local, and Tribal governments; nongovernmental organizations; and the public. The agency's openness principle explicitly recognizes that the public must be informed about and have an opportunity to participate in the regulatory process.
Evidence-building is used to inform agency activities and actions, such as licensing, oversight, budgeting, program improvement, accountability, management, rulemaking, guidance development, and policy development. The emphasis on evidence is meant to support innovation, improvement, and learning. Examples of how the NRC carries out evidence-building include (1) identifying, evaluating, and resolving safety issues; (2) ensuring that an independent technical basis exists to review licensee submittals; (3) evaluating operating experience and results of risk assessments for safety implications; (4) supporting the development and use of risk-informed regulatory approaches; (5) conducting research with scientific integrity; and (6) ensuring that licensing and oversight findings are supported by evidence.
The NRC uses the following standards when conducting evidence-building activities.
1. Rigor—The NRC is committed to using rigorous evidence-building methods by qualified staff with relevant education, skills, and experience to ensure findings are appropriate and feasible within statutory, budgetary, and other constraints.
Rigorous evidence-building requires inferences about cause and effect to be well founded (internal validity); clarity about the populations, settings, or circumstances to which results can be generalized (external validity); and the use of measures that accurately capture the intended information (measurement reliability and validity). The NRC's evidence-building activities are conducted by qualified staff with relevant education, skills, and experience for the methods undertaken. The NRC's evidence-building activities use appropriate designs and methods that adhere to widely accepted scientific principles to answer key questions
2. Relevance and Utility—The NRC ensures that evidence-building activities are relevant and provide useful findings to inform agency activities, actions, and stakeholders.
The NRC performs evidence-building activities to examine questions of importance and serve the information needs of stakeholders. The NRC presents findings that are clear, concise, actionable, and available within a timeline that is appropriate to the questions under consideration. The NRC's evidence-building priorities consider legislative requirements; the NRC's strategic goals, objectives, and strategies; and the interests and views of stakeholders.
3. Transparency—The NRC is committed to conducting evidence-building activities in an open and transparent manner, which keeps stakeholders informed.
The NRC's evidence-building activities are conducted openly and the public must be informed about and have an opportunity to participate in the NRC's regulatory process. As a regulator, the NRC listens to, respects, and analyzes different views from its stakeholders. The NRC ensures open channels of communication are maintained between internal and external stakeholders, including Congress, other government agencies, licensees, nongovernmental organizations, individual members of the public, and international and domestic nuclear communities. The NRC takes reasonable measures to make all information, including information about the NRC's evidence-building activities (including their purpose, objectives, design, findings, and methods), broadly available and accessible. The NRC releases public evidence-building findings in a timely manner and archives the data for secondary use by stakeholders, as appropriate.
4. Collaboration—The NRC is committed to working collaboratively when conducting evidence-building activities and draws on the expertise of subject matter experts to ensure diversity in perspectives.
The NRC fosters a collaborative work environment that encourages diverse views, alternative approaches, critical thinking, creative problem solving, unbiased findings, and honest feedback. The NRC emphasizes trust, respect, and open communication to promote a positive work environment that maximizes the potential of all individuals, which improves evidence building and evaluation activities. A collaborative environment leverages expertise from subject matter experts and enables peer reviews to ensure rigorous evidence-building. The NRC conducts research and collaborates with organizations that develop consensus standards to improve data and methods used in risk analysis. The NRC collaborates with national laboratories, Agreement States, other Federal agencies, universities, and international organizations.
5. Independence and Objectivity—As an independent Federal agency, the NRC is committed to conducting evidence-building activities that are independent and based on objective assessments and analysis of all relevant information.
The NRC was established as an independent agency to regulate civilian uses of radioactive material. The NRC's evidence-building activities are independent and objective to maintain credibility and integrity. The implementation of evidence-building activities, including the selection and assignment of the staff, should be appropriately insulated from factors that may affect objectivity, impartiality, and professional judgment. Evidence-building is inclusive and the NRC seeks input from a broad range of stakeholders in setting priorities, identifying questions, and assessing the implications of findings. The NRC strives for objectivity in the planning and conduct of evidence-building activities.
6. Ethics—The NRC is committed to conducting evidence-building activities that adhere to Government-wide ethics standards to protect the public and maintain public trust.
The NRC's evidence-building activities comply with relevant legal requirements and are conducted in a manner that is free from conflicts of interest, undue influence, the appearance of bias, and safeguards the dignity, rights, safety, and privacy of participants. The NRC complies with Governmentwide ethics standards contained in Federal statutes and regulations, which are intended to ensure that every citizen can have confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule; official interpretations; correcting amendments.
This document corrects the Official Interpretations (Commentary) to Regulation Z. Specifically, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is adding a comment to its Commentary that it included in a recent higher-priced mortgage loan escrow exemption final rule but that was not incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) due to an omission in an amendatory instruction. The Bureau is also revising a comment that it included in the same recent final rule, but that inadvertently did not appear in a subsequently effective final rule.
The corrections are effective on June 3, 2021.
Joseph Devlin, Senior Counsel, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700 or
The Bureau is issuing this document to correct two comments in the Bureau's Commentary to Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act.
Additionally, the Bureau is amending the CFR to revise a comment that the Bureau amended in the Escrow Exemption Rule but that inadvertently
Advertising, Banks, banking, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National Banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth-in-lending.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 3353, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
The addition and revision read as follows:
1. The transaction threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(vi)(B) differs from the transaction threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(B) in two ways. First, the threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(vi)(B) is 1,000 loans secured by first liens on a principal dwelling, while the threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(B) is 2,000 loans secured by first liens on a dwelling. Second, all loans made by the creditor and its affiliates secured by a first lien on a principal dwelling count toward the 1,000-loan threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(vi)(B), whether or not such loans are held in portfolio. By contrast, under § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(B), only loans secured by first liens on a dwelling that were sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred to another person, or that were subject at the time of consummation to a commitment to be acquired by another person, are counted toward the 2,000-loan threshold.
1.
i. During the preceding calendar year or during either of the two preceding calendar years if the application for the transaction was received before April 1 of the current calendar year, the creditor extended a first-lien covered transaction, as defined in § 1026.43(b)(1), on a property that is located in an area that is designated either “rural” or “underserved,” as defined in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iv), to satisfy the requirement of § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(A) (the rural-or-underserved test). Pursuant to § 1026.35(b)(2)(iv), an area is considered to be rural if it is: A county that is neither in a metropolitan statistical area, nor a micropolitan statistical area adjacent to a metropolitan statistical area, as those terms are defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget; or a census block that is not in an urban area, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau using the latest decennial census of the United States. An area is considered to be underserved during a calendar year if, according to HMDA data for the preceding calendar year, it is a county in which no more than two creditors extended covered transactions secured by first liens on properties in the county five or more times.
A. The Bureau determines annually which counties in the United States are rural or underserved as defined by § 1026.35(b)(2)(iv)(A)(
B. For example, if a creditor extended during 2017 a first-lien covered transaction that is secured by a property that is located in an area that meets the definition of rural or underserved under § 1026.35(b)(2)(iv), the creditor meets this element of the exception for any transaction consummated during 2018.
C. Alternatively, if the creditor did not extend in 2017 a transaction that meets the definition of rural or underserved test under § 1026.35(b)(2)(iv), the creditor satisfies this criterion for any transaction consummated during 2018 for which it received the application before April 1, 2018, if it extended during 2016 a first-lien covered transaction that is secured by a property that is located in an area that meets the definition of rural or underserved under § 1026.35(b)(2)(iv).
ii. During the preceding calendar year, or, if the application for the transaction was received before April 1 of the current calendar year, during either of the two preceding calendar years, the creditor together with its affiliates extended no more than 2,000 covered transactions, as defined by § 1026.43(b)(1), secured by first liens, that were sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred to another person, or that were subject at the time of consummation to a commitment to be acquired by another person, to satisfy the requirement of § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(B).
iii. As of the preceding December 31st, or, if the application for the transaction was received before April 1 of the current calendar year, as of either of the two preceding December 31sts, the creditor and its affiliates that regularly extended covered transactions secured by first liens, together, had total assets that do not exceed the applicable asset threshold established by the Bureau, to satisfy the requirement of § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C). The Bureau publishes notice of the asset threshold each year by amending comment 35(b)(2)(iii)-1.iii.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; technical amendment.
This action changes the using agency of restricted area R-6413, Green River, UT. The FAA is taking this administrative action in response to the requested change from the United States Air Force to the United States Army as the using agency. There are no changes to the boundaries; designated altitudes; or activities conducted within the affected restricted area.
Effective date 0901 UTC, August 12, 2021.
Christopher McMullin, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator.
Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it administratively amends the using agency for restricted area R-6413, Green River, UT.
The FAA evaluates utilization of special use airspace annually. For the past several years the utilization of restricted area R-6413 has declined steadily. The FAA in coordination with the United States Air Force and the United States Army, has concluded the restricted area is still needed, and the using agency should be transferred. Therefore, the using agency has changed from Deputy for Air Force, White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002 to Commanding General, White Sands Missile Range, NM, due to emerging Army requirements and their planned use of the restricted area R-6413.
This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by revising the using agency listed for restricted area R-6413, Green River, UT. The using agency for R-6413 is changed from “Deputy for Air Force, White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002” to “Commanding General, White Sands Missile Range, NM”. These are administrative changes and do not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted area; therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of changing the using agency from the US Air Force to the US Army for restricted area R-6413; Green River, UT, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
By removing the “Using agency. Deputy for Air Force, White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002” and adding in their place “Using agency. Commanding General, White Sands Missile Range, NM.”
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective June 3, 2021. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 3, 2021.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104, Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14 CFR part 97, (is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME,MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
. . . Effective Upon Publication
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective June 3, 2021. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 3, 2021.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104, Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CRF part 97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is amending an existing special local regulation for certain waters of the East Passage, Narragansett Bay, RI. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near East Passage, Narragansett Bay, RI, during a sail boat race. This regulation would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the special local regulation unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Southeastern New England or a designated representative.
This rule is effective July 6, 2021.
If you have questions about this amended regulation, call or email LT Benjamin Aaronson, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (401) 435-2355, email
The Captain of the Port Sector Southeast New England (COTP) is amending an existing special local regulation found in 33 CFR 100.119 for certain waters of the East Passage, Narragansett Bay, RI. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near East Passage, Narragansett Bay, RI, during a sail boat race requiring a limited access area restricting vessel traffic for safety purposes.
On March 9, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local Regulation; East Passage, Narragansett Bay, RI (85 FR 13595). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this special local regulation. During the comment period that ended April 8, 2020, two comments were recieved.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. Based on the nature of this sailboat race, large numbers of participants and spectators, and event locations, the COTP has determined that the potential hazards associated with the event listed in this rule could pose a risk to participants or waterways users if the normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the events. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual contact among participant vessels and spectators or mariners traversing through the regulated area. This purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of all waterway users, including event participants, spectators, and vessels during this scheduled event.
As noted above, we received two comments on the NPRM published March 9, 2020 that were not relevant to this rulemaking. Both of these comments were submitted anonymously and unrelated to this rulemaking. There is one change in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. The last longitudinal coordinate of 072°22′83″ W was changed to 071°22′83″ W in the first regulated area due to a typing error.
This rule amends a special local regulation found in 33 CFR 100.119 currently reads as follows:
In the event that weather conditions prohibit a safe race start within the approach to Newport Harbor, the race will begin offshore and the following regulated area applies (NAD 83):
The amended regulation would be to expand the size of the first regulated area and to adjust the latitude and longitude of the second regulated area to encompass a new potential starting line for the race to accommodate for ideal weather parameters. The special local regulation would cover all navigable waters from an area just south of Rose Island expanding just past Castle Hill, RI, and also an area near Brenton Point. The amended location of the special local regulation is as follows:
In the event that weather conditions prohibit a safe race start within the approach to Newport Harbor, the race will begin offshore and the following regulated area applies (NAD 83):
The starting line will take place within one of the amended regulated areas and will be decided prior to the race pending current weather conditions. The starting line box will be the restricted part of the waterway within the regulated area and that exact location will be broadcasted prior to the race start. The duration of the special local regulation is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled sail boat race. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the special local regulation without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by phone at 508-457-3211. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this special local regulation must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the special local regulation as well as any changes in the planned schedule. The regulatory text we are amending appears at the end of this document.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule 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 size, location, duration and time-of-day of the special local regulation. We expect the adverse economic impact to this area to be minimal. Although this regulation may have adverse impact on the impact, the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: The special local regulation will be in effect for a maximum of 6 hours during the day of the event; vessels will only be restricted from the area in the East Passage of the Narragansett Bay during those limited periods when the races are actually on going; there is an alternate route, the West Passage of Narragansett Bay, that does not add substantial transit time, is already routinely used by mariners, and will not be affected by this special local regulation. Moreover, the Coast Guard
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this amended 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 special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this amended rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This amended rule involves a special local regulation lasting approximately 6 hours that would prohibit entry within the regulated area. Such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L 61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041.
(a)
(2) In the event that weather conditions prohibit a safe race start within the approach to Newport Harbor, the race will begin offshore and the following regulated area applies (NAD 83):
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels seeking to enter the regulated area must request permission from the COTP or a
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this regulated area must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of difenoconazole in or on olive; olive, with pit; pepper, black; and persimmon, Japanese. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC. and the American Spice Trade Association, Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective June 3, 2021. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 2, 2021, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The dockets for these actions, identified by docket identification (ID) numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0626, EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0082, and EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0345, are available at
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit
Marietta Echeverria, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0626, EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0082, and/or EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0345 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 2, 2021. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0626, EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0082, and/or EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0345, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i) permits the Agency to finalize a tolerance that varies from that sought by the petition. Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has corrected the commodity definition of “olive (including oil)” to “olive” and “olive, with pit”, and the tolerance level set with “olive” varies from that sought by the petition. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but it does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of difenoconazole and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for difenoconazole, including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with difenoconazole follows.
Information on aggregate risk from difenoconazole is found in the “Difenoconazole. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Establishment of Tolerances with No U.S. Registrations in/on Japanese Persimmon, Olive, and Black Pepper” in docket ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0626, EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0082, and EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0345.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The liver is the target organ in mice and rats; however, effects occur in mice at lower doses and with higher severity than in rats. Furthermore, difenoconazole is classified as “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential” based on liver tumors (adenomas) in male and female mice. Apart from the liver effects in rodents, chronic exposure in dogs leads to lenticular cataracts.
In dermal studies, no systemic toxicity was detected in rats or male rabbits, while in female rabbits, liver effects occurred at the limit dose. Skin hyperkeratosis was detected in rats at the exposure site after repeated exposure to the limit dose. Slight skin irritation was detected after an acute single dose (Toxicity Category IV). Difenoconazole is not a skin sensitizer.
No quantitative susceptibility in fetus or offspring was seen in the database. Neurotoxicity was detected in an acute neurotoxicity battery study (decreased fore-limb strength in males only), but not in a subchronic neurotoxicity battery study with difenoconazole.
In an immunotoxicity study in mice, decreased mean immunoglobin M levels were detected at dose levels ≥ 177 mg/kg/day. There is no other indication of immunotoxicity in the difenoconazole database.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by difenoconazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
EPA's chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessments have been updated to include the additional exposure from the import tolerances of difenoconazole on olive; olive, with pit; pepper, black; and persimmon, Japanese. The exposure assessment used tolerance-level residues and default processing factors for all processed commodities. The percent crop treated numbers used for the chronic dietary assessment vary from what was used in the previous assessment and are available in the human health risk assessment posted to the dockets.
Drinking water exposures are not impacted by the import tolerances on olive; olive, with pit; pepper, black; and persimmon, Japanese. The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of total toxic residues (TTR) of difenoconazole can be found in the human health risk assessment.
Acute dietary (food and drinking water) risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD): They are 53% of the aPAD for all infants less than 1-year old, the population subgroup with the highest exposure estimate. Chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD): They are 38% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1-year old, the population subgroup with the highest exposure estimate.
For the aggregate risk assessment, exposures to difenoconazole in food and drinking water are combined with residential exposures for the relevant exposure duration period. Because acute, intermediate-term, or long-term residential exposures are not expected, aggregate acute and chronic risk is equivalent to the dietary risks, which are below EPA's level of concern. Moreover, a separate cancer dietary risk assessment was not required since the approach used for chronic dietary exposure assessment was found to be adequately protective of all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to difenoconazole. Short-term aggregate risk, which combines chronic dietary exposure with the expected residential handler inhalation exposures from applications to gardens/ornamentals via hose-end sprayer, yields a margin of exposure (MOE) of 5,000, which is not of concern because it exceeds EPA's level of concern (MOEs less than or equal to 100). Previously the residential exposure assessments for difenoconazole included a dermal endpoint; however, that endpoint is no longer relevant because the database does not show systemic effects after exposure via the dermal route at doses that would be relevant to risk assessment.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to difenoconazole and any other substances, although EPA has previously concluded that there are no conclusive data that difenoconazole shares a common mechanism of toxicity with other conazole pesticides. Although the conazole fungicides (triazoles) produce 1,2,4 triazole and its acid-conjugated metabolites (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid), 1,2,4 triazole and its acid-conjugated metabolites do not contribute to the toxicity of the parent conazole fungicides (triazoles). A separate aggregate risk assessment was conducted for 1,2,4 triazole and the conjugated triazole metabolites “Common Triazole Metabolites: Updated Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment to Address the Establishment of a Difenoconazole Tolerances with No U.S. Registration for Imported Olive and Black Pepper and to include updated Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations; DP458929”, dated September, 14, 2020 and it can be found at
There were no changes since the last risk assessment regarding prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The FQPA Safety Factor (SF) is still reduced to 1X; however, the safety factor reduction rationale section has been modified to:
i. The toxicity database for difenoconazole is sufficient for a full hazard evaluation and is considered adequate to evaluate risks to infants and children.
ii. The only study that showed neurotoxicity is used as the point of departure for risk assessment and the effect is well characterized with a clear NOAEL and LOAEL. There are signs of neurotoxicity in the acute neurotoxicity battery study (decreased fore-limb strength in males), but not in the subchronic neurotoxicity battery study, nor in any other studies in the database. This risk assessment is protective of the observed neurotoxicity effects because they are used to establish the point of departure (POD) for the acute oral assessment.
iii. There is no evidence that difenoconazole results in increased quantitative susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. No fetal effects were detected in rats. Fetal effects in rabbits and pup effects in rats occurred at the same doses as maternal effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on tolerance-level residues and 100% CT for the acute assessment while the chronic assessment assumed tolerance-level residues, the available empirical or HED's 2018 Default Processing Factors, and average percent crop treated (PCT) information for some commodities. These assumptions will not underestimate dietary exposure to difenoconazole. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to difenoconazole in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by difenoconazole.
Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described above, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to difenoconazole residues. More detailed information about the Agency's analysis can be found in “Difenoconazole. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Establishment of Tolerances with No U.S. Registrations in/on Japanese Persimmon, Olive, and Black Pepper.” dated March 23, 2021 in docket ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0626, EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0082, and EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0345.
An adequate tolerance enforcement method, gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) method AG-575B, is available for the determination of residues of difenoconazole in/on plant commodities. An adequate enforcement method, gas chromatography with mass spectrometry detection (GC/MSD) method AG-676A, is also available for the determination of residues of difenoconazole per se in/on canola and barley commodities. A confirmatory method, GC/MSD method AG-676, is also available.
An adequate tolerance enforcement method, Method REM 147.07b, is available for livestock commodities. The method determines residues of difenoconazole and CGA-205375 in livestock commodities by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC-MS/MS). Adequate confirmatory methods, Method AG-544A and Method REM 147.06, are available for the determination of residues of difenoconazole and CGA-205375, respectively, in livestock commodities.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
Codex has established MRLs for residues of difenoconazole in/on olive commodities using the same data submitted in support of the U.S. tolerances with no U.S. registrations. Codex stipulates that residues should be expressed on a whole-fruit basis. The U.S. recommended tolerance level for olive, with pit (2 ppm) is harmonized with the Codex MRL for residues of difenoconazole in/on table olives (2 ppm). In addition, a tolerance is being set at 3 ppm on olive, defined in OCSPP Guideline 860.1000 as fruits after removal of the stems and pits, which is the commodity analyzed for enforcement.
Codex has not established MRLs for residues of difenoconazole in/on pepper, black. MRLs for of difenoconazole in/on peppercorn (black, green and white) at 0.3 ppm have been established in the European Union (EU). Discussion on why EPA did not harmonize with that tolerance is covered in the Responses to Comments section in Unit IV.B.
A Codex MRL for difenoconazole has been established at 4 ppm in/on pome fruit for post-harvest use. Codex includes Japanese persimmon in the pome fruit group. The tolerance being set at this time is based on late-season foliar use rather than post-harvest use; therefore, the tolerances are not the same and harmonization is not possible.
EPA received one comment on the docket for difenoconazole in/on black pepper (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0345) opposing pesticide residues in food, although no substantive information was provided for EPA to take into consideration in its safety assessment. The commenter generally expressed concern about the potential for exposure to difenoconazole to be carcinogenic. EPA has evaluated the available data on carcinogenicity and exposure and determined that aggregate exposure to difenoconazole will not cause a cancer risk. In addition, the commenter expressed concern about fluoride in chemicals; however, difenoconazole molecules do not contain any fluoride. The FFDCA authorizes EPA to establish tolerances that permit certain levels of pesticide residues in or on food when the Agency can determine that such residues are safe. EPA has made that determination for the tolerances subject to this action, and the commenter provided no information relevant to that conclusion.
A comment from the government of the People's Republic of China (P.R. China) was received through the World Trade Organization comment process. This comment has been posted to the docket for difenoconazole in/on black pepper (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0345). It requests that EPA set the tolerance on pepper, black at 0.3 ppm to match the current EU tolerance. EPA consulted with the registrant regarding the possibility to harmonize the tolerance with the EU limit standards. The registrant, through its consultant, recommended against harmonizing the tolerance with the current EU MRL for residues of difenoconazole in/on black pepper (0.3 ppm) based on the following rationale. According to the registrant, the current EU MRL is not based on supporting data and is of unknown origin. It is expected that any EU MRL not supported by data, such as in this case, would be evaluated during the Article 12 EU MRL Review Process. If no supporting data are submitted during the review process, the EU MRL would be reduced to 0.01 ppm by 2026. The Agency notes that it is also possible that the same data that support the tolerance with no U.S. registration established in this action (0.1 ppm) could be submitted as supporting data to the EU and/or Codex, in which case future harmonization is possible. In addition, the P.R. China comment requests that EPA share the data and reports supporting the tolerance. More detailed information about the Agency's analysis can be found in the risk assessments posted to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0345.
Although the summary of the petition cited in Unit II of this preamble indicated a request for a tolerance on “olive,” the actual petition sought a tolerance for “olive (including oil).” The originally requested tolerance of 2 ppm in/on “olive (including oil)” has been revised to 2 ppm in/on “olive, with pit” and 3 ppm in/on “olive.” The commodity definition commonly used in the 40 CFR is “olive,” meaning fruits after removal of the pits, and the terminology “olive, with pit” is descriptive of the Codex residue expression. Use of both terms allows harmonization with Codex while also maintaining the way that the commodity is analyzed for enforcement in the United States.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of difenoconazole, in or on olive at 3 ppm; olive, with pit at 2 ppm; pepper, black at 0.1 ppm; and persimmon, Japanese at 0.7 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is adding three per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the list of chemicals subject to toxic chemical release reporting under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). This action implements the statutory mandate in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (FY2020 NDAA) enacted on December 20, 2019. As this action is being taken to conform the regulations to a Congressional legislative mandate, notice and comment rulemaking is unnecessary.
This final rule is effective July 6, 2021.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-TRI-2021-0049, is available at
Due to the public health emergency, 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
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or otherwise use any of the PFAS listed in this rule. The following list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this action applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 211130*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512230*, 512250*, 519130*, 541713*, 541715* or 811490*. *Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes.
• Facilities included in the following NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 212111, 212112, 212113 (corresponds to SIC code 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); or 212221, 212222, 212230, 212299 (corresponds to SIC code 10, Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113, 221118, 221121, 221122, 221330 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (corresponds to SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (limited to facilities previously classified in SIC code 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC code 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC code 7389, Business Services, NEC); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921
• Federal facilities.
A more detailed description of the types of facilities covered by the NAICS codes subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313 can be found at:
EPA is codifying in the CFR the three PFAS that were added to the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals (more commonly known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)) pursuant to the FY2020 NDAA.
This action is issued under the authority of section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (42 U.S.C. 11001
On December 20, 2019 the FY2020 NDAA was signed into law. Among other provisions, section 7321(c) identifies certain regulatory activities that automatically add PFAS or classes of PFAS to the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals. Specifically, PFAS or classes of PFAS are added to the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals beginning January 1 of the calendar year after any one of the following dates:
• Final Toxicity Value. The date on which the Administrator finalizes a toxicity value for the PFAS or class of PFAS;
• Significant New Use Rule. The date on which the Administrator makes a covered determination for the PFAS or class of PFAS;
• Addition to Existing Significant New Use Rule. The date on which the PFAS or class of PFAS is added to a list of substances covered by a covered determination;
• Addition as an Active Chemical Substance. The date on which the PFAS or class of PFAS to which a covered determination applies is:
(1) Added to the list published under section 8(b)(1) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601
(2) Designated as an active chemical substance under TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B) on the list published under TSCA section 8(b)(1).
The FY2020 NDAA defines “covered determination” as a determination made by rule under TSCA section 5(a)(2) that a use of a PFAS or class of PFAS is a significant new use (except such a determination made in connection with a determination described in TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B) or 5(a)(3)(C)).
EPA has reviewed the above-listed criteria and found three chemicals that meet the requirements of this part of the FY2020 NDAA and whose identity is not confidential business information (CBI).
Under FY2020 NDAA section 7321(e), EPA must review CBI claims before adding any PFAS to the list whose identity is subject to a claim of protection from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(a). Under the FY2020 NDAA EPA must:
• Review a claim of protection from disclosure; and
• Require that person to reassert and substantiate or resubstantiate that claim in accordance with TSCA section 14(f) (15 U.S.C. 2613(f)).
In addition, if EPA determines that the chemical identity of a PFAS or class of PFAS qualifies for protection from disclosure, EPA must include the PFAS or class of PFAS on the TRI in a manner that does not disclose the protected information.
Updates regarding this process will be provided via the Addition of Certain PFAS to the TRI by the National Defense Authorization Act web page at
As established by the FY2020 NDAA, the addition of these PFAS is effective January 1 of the calendar year following any of the dates identified in FY2020 NDAA section 7321(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, these three non-CBI PFAS are reportable for the 2021 reporting year (
Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because such notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary. This action is being taken to comply with a mandate in an Act of Congress, where Congress identified actions that automatically add these chemicals to the TRI. Thus, EPA has no discretion as to the outcome of this rule, which merely aligns the regulations with the self-effectuating changes provided by the FY2020 NDAA.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not contain any new information collection activities that require additional approval by OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting requirements under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607 may use either EPA Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350-1), or EPA Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350-2). The Form R must be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any listed chemical above threshold quantities and meets certain other criteria. For the Form A, EPA established an alternative threshold for facilities with low annual reportable amounts of a listed toxic chemical. A facility that meets the appropriate reporting thresholds, but estimates that the total annual reportable amount of the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds per year, can take advantage of an alternative manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1 million pounds per year of the chemical, provided that certain conditions are met, and submit the Form A instead of the Form R. In addition, respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a substance as a trade secret pursuant to EPCRA section 322 (42 U.S.C. 11042) and 40 CFR part 350. OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to Forms A and R, supplier notification, and petitions under OMB Control number 2070-0212 (EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) No. 2613) and those related to trade secret designations under OMB Control 2050-0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428).
As provided in 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.6(a), 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 OMB control numbers relevant to EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and displayed on the information collection instruments (
This rule is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action will impose no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It 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.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory
This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note.
This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This action involves additions to reporting requirements that will not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic chemicals.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 372 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.
(d) * * *
(e) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
On February 12, 2021, the Media Bureau, Video Division (Bureau) issued a
Effective June 3, 2021.
Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1647 or
The proposed rule was published at 86 FR 16313 on March 29, 2021. The Licensee filed comments in support of the petition reaffirming its commitment to apply for channel 21. No other comments were filed. In support, the Licensee asserts that KMYU, as a VHF channel station, has a long history of dealing with severe reception problems, and that substitution of channel 21 for channel 9 will result in enhanced signal levels to a large percentage of the population within KMYU's service area, without any predicted loss of coverage and with a predicted increase of more than 8,000 persons in the KMYU service area. 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,
The Commission will send a copy of this
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
(i) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
On February 12, 2021, the Media Bureau, Video Division (Bureau) issued a
Effective June 3, 2021.
Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1647 or
The proposed rule was published at 86 FR 17110 on April 1, 2021. The Licensee filed comments in support of the petition reaffirming its commitment to apply for channel 20. No other comments were filed. The Licensee asserts that KVII, as a VHF channel station, has a long history of dealing with severe reception problems. In addition, the Licensee states that the substitution of channel 20 for channel 7 will result in enhanced signal levels to a large percentage of the population within KVII's service area, without any predicted loss of coverage and with a predicted increase of persons in the KVII service area.
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,
The Commission will send a copy of this
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
(i) * * *
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Extension of public comment period.
On May 7, 2021, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published an early assessment request for information (“RFI”) undertaking an early assessment review for amended energy conservation standards for ceiling fans to determine whether to amend applicable energy conservation standards for this product. The notice provided an opportunity for submitting written comments, data, and information by June 7, 2021. DOE received a request from the Air Movement and Control Association (AMCA) and the American Light Association (ALA) for a comment period extension of 45 additional days. AMCA and ALA stated that an extension would improve the quality of the information industry submits to the department and increase the likelihood of presenting the department with consensus recommendations on many of the questions it is asking. DOE has reviewed these requests and is granting an extension of the public comment period for 21 days to allow public comments to be submitted until June 28, 2021.
The comment period for the RFI published on May 7, 2021 (86 FR 24538) is extended. DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this RFI received no later than June 28, 2021.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is currently accepting only electronic submissions at this time. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the Covid-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
The docket web page can be found at:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
On May 7, 2021, DOE published a notice that it is undertaking an early assessment review for amended energy conservation standards for ceiling fans to determine whether to amend applicable energy conservation standards for this product. Specifically, through the RFI, DOE requested data and information to evaluate whether amended energy conservation standards would result in significant savings of energy; be technologically feasible; and be economically justified. 86 FR 24538. On May 19, 2021, interested parties in the matter the Air Movement and Control Association (AMCA) and the American Light Association (ALA) jointly requested an extension of the comment period extension for an 45 additional days. (AMCA and ALA, No. 2 at p. 1).
DOE has reviewed the request and is extending the comment period to allow additional time for interested parties to submit comments. As noted, the RFI was issued as part of the early assessment stages of rulemaking to consider amendments to the energy conservation standards for ceiling fans. If DOE determines that amended energy conservation standards may be appropriate, additional notices will be published (
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 26, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D; and Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that the lanyards (bead chain tethers), which hold the quick release pins to the forward bracket assembly of certain litter kits, can loop around the directional control pedal stubs, limiting the movement of the pedals. This proposed AD would require modification of the lanyard attachment location for certain litter kit installations. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 19, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 North Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket at
Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Mail Stop: Room 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7330; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Mail Stop: Room 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7330; email
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-37, dated December 19, 2017 (Canadian AD CF-2017-37), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS 350 B, AS 350 BA, AS 350 B1, AS 350 B2, AS 350 B3, AS 350 D, AS 355 E, AS 355 F, AS 355 F1, AS 355 F2, AS 355 N, and AS 355 NP helicopters. Transport Canada advises that there have been reports that the lanyards, which hold the quick release pins to the forward bracket assembly of certain litter kits, can loop around the directional control pedal stubs, limiting the movement of the pedals, which affects the control of the flight. If this condition exists and is not corrected during installation, this limitation may not be apparent until the pedal input is required in flight. This
Accordingly, Canadian AD CF-2017-37 requires modification of the lanyard attachment location for certain litter kit installations. Canadian AD CF-2017-37 also specifies that installation of an affected part number litter kit is prohibited unless the installation conforms to the requirements of Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin SB-AHCA-128, Revision 0, dated March 24, 2017.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.
The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin SB-AHCA-128, Revision 0, dated March 24, 2017. This service information specifies procedures for modifying the bead chain tether attachment locations for litter kits with certain part numbers. The modification includes relocating the bead chain tethers by removing the screws and washers for the pip pins on the forward bracket assembly; filling the empty holes with rivets; determining the new locations of and drilling new holes; and securing the bead chain tethers on the top side of the forward bracket assembly in the new hole locations.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Transport Canada AD.”
This proposed AD would require a pre-flight check prior to each flight to determine if there is interference between the lanyards that hold the quick release pins to the forward bracket assembly of the litter kit and the flight controls. This pre-flight check requirement would be terminated upon completion of the modification of the litter kit installation. Canadian AD CF-2017-37 does not include a requirement for the pre-flight check prior to each flight to determine if there is interference between the lanyards and the flight controls.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 967 helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by July 19, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, and AS350D helicopters; and Model AS355E, AS355F,
(1) Part number (P/N) 350-200034 (left-hand litter kit).
(2) P/N 350-200194 (left-hand litter kit).
(3) P/N 350-200144 (right-hand litter kit).
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6700, Rotorcraft Flight Control.
This AD was prompted by reports that the lanyards (bead chain tethers), which hold the quick release pins to the forward bracket assembly of certain litter kits, can loop around the directional control pedal stubs, limiting the movement of the pedals, which affect the control of the flight. The FAA is issuing this AD to address interference between the litter kit lanyards and the flight controls. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in limited flight control movement and difficulty controlling the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For litter kits having any part specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD: Prior to each flight until the modification required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD is accomplished, do a pre-flight check to determine if there is interference (
(2) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, modify the attachment location of the lanyard for litter kits having any part specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD. Do the modification in accordance with paragraph 3.B.2., “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin SB-AHCA-128, Revision 0, dated March 24, 2017.
Litter kits, P/N 350-200034 and P/N 350-200194, may have been installed under STC SR00406NY (for Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters) or STC SR00407NY (for Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, and AS350D helicopters). Litter kit P/N 350-200144 may have been installed under STC SR00458NY (for Model AS350BA, AS350B2, and AS350B3 helicopters).
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a litter kit having a part number identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD, on any helicopter, unless the installation is modified as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Mail Stop: Room 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7330; email
(2) For information about AMOCs, contact the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 North Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(4) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD CF-2017-37 dated December 19, 2017. You may view the Transport Canada AD on the internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW1500G and PW1900G series turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the high-pressure compressor (HPC) rotor shaft that resulted in in-flight shutdowns (IFSDs) and unscheduled engine removals (UERs). This proposed AD would require removal and replacement of the HPC front hub and HPC rotor shaft. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 19, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: (800) 565-0140; fax: (860) 565-5442; email:
You may examine the AD docket at
Mark Taylor, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7229; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mark Taylor, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA received reports of cracks in the HPC rotor shaft that resulted in vibration and subsequent IFSDs and UERs. The manufacturer determined that the threads on the HPC rotor shaft were not optimized for load distribution, which resulted in vibration stresses. During one occurrence, oil was released at the high-pressure turbine (HPT) disk bore location. The manufacturer redesigned the HPC front hub and HPC rotor shaft for increased durability and decreased vibration stress. The redesigned HPC front hub is made from nickel to help with corrosion resistance. The threads on the HPC rotor shaft were also redesigned to help distribute the load on the threads and decrease vibration stress. This condition, if not addressed, could result in release of an HPT disk, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin (SB) PW1000G-A-72-00-0154-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 001, dated May 7, 2021 (PW1000G-A-72-00-0154-00A-930A-D), and Pratt & Whitney SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0101-00B-930A-D, Issue No. 001, dated May 7, 2021 (SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0101-00B-930A-D). These SBs describe procedures for removing and replacing the HPC front hub and HPC rotor shaft.
This proposed AD would require removal and replacement of the HPC front hub and HPC rotor shaft.
Pratt & Whitney SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0154-00A-930A-D and Pratt & Whitney SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0101-00B-930A-D provide instructions to concurrently perform the actions in Pratt & Whitney SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0157-00A-930A-D and SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0105-00B-930A-D, respectively. This AD does not require performance of the actions described in Pratt & Whitney SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0157-00A-930A-D or SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0105-00B-930A-D since these SBs describe ring seal replacement, which is not related to the unsafe condition addressed by this AD.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 94 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by July 19, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521G-3, PW1521GA, PW1524G, PW1524G-3, PW1525G, PW1525G-3, PW1919G, PW1921G, PW1922G, PW1923G, and PW1923G-A model turbofan engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the high-pressure compressor (HPC) rotor shaft that resulted in in-flight shutdowns and unscheduled engine removals. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the HPC rotor shaft. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in release of a high-pressure turbine disk, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, remove HPC front hub, part number (P/N) 30G1910 or 30G3210, and HPC rotor shaft, P/N 30G1854, 30G3109, 30G4995, 30G4953, or 31G0014, from service and replace each part with a part eligible for installation.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine case flanges, except for the following, which do not constitute an engine shop visit:
(i) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation without subsequent maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
(ii) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of replacing the fan without subsequent maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
(2) For the purpose of this AD, a “part eligible for installation” is:
(i) For a HPC front hub: Any HPC front hub with a P/N other than P/N 30G1910 or 30G3210; and
(ii) For a HPC rotor shaft: Any HPC rotor shaft with a P/N other than P/N 30G1854, 30G3109, 30G4995, 30G4953, or 31G0014.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in Related Information. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Mark Taylor, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7229; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Kentucky regulatory program (hereinafter, the Kentucky program), under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Kentucky proposes to revise their administrative regulations to correct citations and revise language related to the repeal of the interim program regulations.
This document gives the times and locations that the Kentucky program and this proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (e.d.t.), July 6, 2021. If requested, we may hold a public hearing or meeting on the amendment on June 28, 2021. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4:00 p.m., e.d.t. on June 18, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by SATS No. KY-263-FOR, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Michael Castle, Field Office Director, Lexington Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 2675 Regency Road, Lexington, KY 40503, Telephone: (859) 260-3900, Email:
In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following location:
Mr. Gordon Slone, Commissioner, Department for Natural Resources, Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, 3000 Sower Boulevard, Frankfort, KY 40601, Telephone: (502) 564-6940, Email:
Mr. Michael Castle, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 2675 Regency Road, Lexington, KY 40503. Telephone: (859) 260-3900; email:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its approved State program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations.
By letter dated May 18, 2020, (Administrative Record No. KY-2005), Kentucky sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the State program.
If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule during the 30-day comment period, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
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.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance dated October 12, 1993, the approval of State program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563, which reaffirms and supplements Executive Order 12866, retains this exemption.
When a State submits a program amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to amend the regulations for recurring marine events that take place within the Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility. We invite your comments on this rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 6, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2020- 0332 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Jerry Barnes, Fifth Coast Guard District Office of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6230,
The Fifth Coast Guard District puts in place recurring special local regulations to ensure public safety for marine events that take place either on or over the navigable waters of the United States within the Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility as defined at 33 CFR part 3, subpart 3.25. These recurring special local regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 and that section's respective table. The Coast Guard regularly updates these regulations. They were last substantively amended June 13, 2017. The Fifth Coast Guard District is proposing to revise these regulations for improved clarity, to correspond with current Coast Guard operating policies for marine events, to update existing events, add new events, and remove events that no longer require additional safety measures. Based on the nature of marine events, large numbers of participants and spectators, and event locations, the events listed in the table to 33 CFR 100.501 could pose a risk to participants or waterway users if normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the event. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death resulting from near or actual contact among participant vessels and non-participant vessels or mariners traversing through the regulated area. In order to protect the safety of all waterway users including event participants and non-participants, this rule would establish special local regulations for the time and location of each marine event.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the navigable waters within close proximity to recurring marine events before, during, and after the scheduled events. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The Secretary has delegated ports and waterways authority, with certain reservations not applicable here, to the Commandant via DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(70). The Commandant has further delegated these authorities within the Coast Guard as described in 33 CFR 1.05-1
We are proposing several stylistic and formatting changes to update 33 CFR 100.501, and associated tables, to provide greater clarity and remove potential ambiguities. We are also proposing to make revisions to reflect current Coast Guard marine event policy.
• Plain language edits, such as switching from passive to active voice and more clearly stating the enforcement period for each event.
• Writing regulatory requirements and definitions in the singular rather than the plural, where appropriate.
• Listing definitions and the events by COTP Zone in alphabetical order.
• Reformatting the table entries so that they all have similar formatting (there are currently discrepancies in how similar entries are formatted).
• Separating the special local regulations for each COTP Zone into their own tables.
• Amending the name and location for Sector Virginia to Portsmouth, VA, where the command center is located and to change the phone number for Sector North Carolina.
Additionally, we are proposing to consolidate all defined terms into a single paragraph, paragraph (b) of § 100.501, and list them in alphabetical order. Currently the defined terms “buffer area”, “race area”, and “spectator area” appear in the
We would change the defined term of “buffer area” to “buffer zone” to comport with the more common usage. The definition would be revised to reflect that it may sometimes be appropriate to have a buffer zone event if there is not a spectator area within the regulated area.
We would change the defined term “Coast Guard Patrol Commander” to “Event Patrol Commander” or “Event PATCOM” in alignment with updated local policy. The underlying associated definition would remain the same: A Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on their behalf.
We would change the defined term of “official patrol” to “official patrol vessel or official patrol” in alignment with updated local policy. The text of the definition would remain unchanged except for some additional text at the end to allow the Event PATCOM to be augmented by local, state, or Federal officials authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard in accordance with local agreements. This revision enhances the resources available to the COTP to ensure the safety and security of the public during these events.
We are proposing to remove the defined term “spectator” and add in its place definitions for “participant” and “non-participant”. This wording change better reflects who is actually present in and near regulated areas and how the Coast Guard regulates their activities.
We are proposing to amend current paragraph (b), paragraph (c) in the proposed text, to delegate authority to the local COTP in determining when a marine patrol is required. This delegation of authority from the District Commander provides the local operational commander the ability to manage and maintain safety and security for events within their Area of Responsibility. We have also updated the text to allow for other government agencies to provide enforcement when working under local agreements and added the term Event Patrol Commander (Event PATCOM). Collectively, these changes enable the local Captain of the Port to retain operational control and incorporate risk based decision making to the event. Finally, authority has been given to the COTP, COTP representative, or Event PATCOM to postpone or cancel the event to ensure the safety of the event and the public.
This proposed rule would add 7 new special local regulations for recurring marine events, revise 12 previously established regulations for recurring marine events, and remove 14 recurring events listed in § 100.501 for the reasons provided in the table. The revised events and the new events would be required to comply with the requirements in 33 CFR 100.501.
The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. 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 short amount of time that vessels will be restricted from regulated areas, and the small size of these areas that are usually positioned away from high vessel traffic zones. Generally vessels would not be precluded from getting underway, or mooring at any piers or marinas currently located in the vicinity of the regulated areas. Advance notifications would also be made to the local maritime community by issuance of Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information or Security Bulletins so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Notifications to the public for most events will typically be made by local newspapers, radio and TV stations. The Coast Guard anticipates that these special local regulated areas will only be enforced one to three times per year.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through a special local regulated area 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.
These special local regulated areas will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The Coast Guard will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the areas where events are occurring to the extent possible while ensuring the safety of event participants and non-participants. The enforcement period will be short in duration and, in many of the areas, vessels can transit safely around the regulated area. Generally permission to enter, remain in, or transit through these regulated areas during the enforcement may be given when deemed safe to do so by the Event PATCOM on scene. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories widely.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1, because it involves establishment of special local regulations related to marine event permits for marine parades, regattas, and other marine events. 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 the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(ii) A person or vessel must comply with all instructions of the Event PATCOM or official patrol vessel.
(iii) A vessel operator may request permission to enter and transit through a regulated area by contacting the Event PATCOM or official patrol vessel on VHF-FM channel 16. When authorized to transit through the regulated area, the vessel must proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the event area.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(e)
(1) Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay—Captain of the Port Zone, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: (215) 271-4940.
(2) Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region—Captain of the Port Zone, Baltimore, Maryland: (410) 576-2525.
(3) Coast Guard Sector Virginia—Captain of the Port Zone, Portsmouth, Virginia: (757) 483-8567.
(4) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina—Captain of the Port Zone, Wilmington, North Carolina: (910) 343-3882.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(2)
(i)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of Lake Charles west of 93°13′51.2″ W, east of 93°14′8.3″ W, and extending 500 yards south from the northern shore of Lake Charles. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from hazards associated with a Pro Watercross event on August 28 and 29, 2021 in Lake Charles, LA. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone would be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 18, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2021-0379 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Christpher Saylor, MSU Lake Charles, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 337-491-7816, email
On May 19, 2021, the Pro Watercross Organization notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting watercross races from 8 a.m. through 6 p.m. on August 28 and 29, 2021. These watercross races are scheduled to be conducted along the north shore of Lake Charles in waters west of 93°13′51.2″ W, east of 93°14′8.3″ W, and extending 500 yards south from the north shoreline of Lake Charles, LA. The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the pro watercross races would be a safety concern for spectator craft and vessels in the vicinity of these race events.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the vicinity of the pro watercross race course, during, and after the scheduled races. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).
The COTP is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone from 8 a.m. on August 28, 2021, through 6 p.m. on August 29, 2021. The safety zone would be enforced from 8 a.m. through 6 p.m. on both days the 28th and the 29th of August 2021. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters west of 93°13′51.2″ W, east of 93°14′8.3″ W, and extending 500 yards south from the north shoreline of Lake Charles, LA. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels, in the navigable waters of the Lake Charles during the watercross races.
No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 13 or 16, or by phone at by telephone at 337-912-0073.
The COTP or a designated representative may prohibit or control the movement of all vessels in the zone. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel would come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative may terminate enforcement of the safety zone at the conclusion of the event.
The COTP or a designated representative would inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
This regulatory action determination is based the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone would be enforced on a 500-yards by 500-yards portion of navigable waters of Lake Charles, LA, for only two days. This rule would be enforced to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from hazards associated with the pro watercross race.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting 10 hours on each of the two event days, and would prohibit entry within 500 yards of the beach area of North Lake Charles. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(3) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(4) The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the event.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish two security zones for certain waters of Rehoboth Beach to prevent waterside threats and incidents for persons under the protection of the United States Secret Service (USSS) in the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. These security zones would be enforced intermittently and only for the protection of persons protected by USSS when in the area and will restrict vessel traffic while the zone is being enforced. This rule would prohibit vessels and people from entering the zones unless specifically exempt under the provisions of this rule or granted specific permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) Delaware Bay or a designated representative. Any vessel requesting to transit the zones without pause or delay, will typically be authorized to do so by on scene enforcement vessels. We invite your comments on this proposed rule.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 19, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2021-0208 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Edmund Ofalt, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division; telephone 215-271-4889, email
On occasion, persons protected by the USSS under 18 U.S.C. 3056 or pursuant to Presidential memorandum will visit Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, and the surrounding vicinity. These visits require the implementation of heightened security measures for persons protected by the USSS who may be present in the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Due to the close proximity of the Lewes and Rehoboth canal, and the Atlantic Ocean, these security zones are necessary for USSS protectees, the public, and the surrounding waterway.
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to protect USSS protectees and the public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious or potential terrorist acts. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231), as delegated by Department of Homeland Security Delegation no. 0170.1, section II, paragraph 70, from the Secretary of DHS to the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, and further redelegated by 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5 to the Captains of the Port.
The COTP is proposing to establish two security zones for the protection of USSS protectees when present in the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. This rule is necessary to expedite the
Security Zone One is bounded on the north by a line drawn from 38° 44.36′ North Latitude (N), 075° 5.32′ West Longitude (W), thence easterly to 38° 44.37′ N, 075° 5.31′ W proceeding from shoreline to shoreline on the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal in a Southeasterly direction where it is bounded by a line drawn from 38° 43.89′ N, 075° 5.31′ W, thence easterly to 38° 43.90′ N, 075° 5.07′ W thence northerly across the entrance to the yacht basin to 38° 43.93′ N, 075° 5.09′ W.
Security Zone Two extends 500 yards seaward from the shoreline, into the Atlantic Ocean beginning at 38° 44.86′ N, 075° 4.83′ W, proceeding southerly along the shoreline to 38° 43.97′ N, 075° 4.70′ W.
These security zones may be activated individually or simultaneously with respect to the presence of USSS protectees. These zones will be enforced intermittently. Enforcement of these zones will be broadcast via Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) and/or local Safety Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB) on VHF-FM marine channel 16, as well as actual notice via on scene Coast Guard Personnel. The public can learn the status of the security zone via an information release for the public via website
No vessel or person would be permitted to enter either security zone without first obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. However, we anticipate that vessels requesting to transit these zones would typically be authorized to transit without pause or delay by on-scene enforcement vessels. When a vessel or person is permitted to enter the security zone after obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, the vessel or person must proceed as directed by on scene enforcement vessels. Any vessel or person permitted to transit the security zone would be required to continue through the zone without pause or delay as directed by on scene enforcement vessels. No vessel or person will be permitted to stop or anchor in the security zone. At times, for limited duration, it is anticipated that vessels may be prohibited from entering the zone due to movement of persons protected by USSS. During those times, actual notice will be given to vessels in the area.
When these security zones are enforced, the COTP would issue a BNM and/or SMIB via VHF-FM channel 16. The public can learn the status of the security zone via an information release for the public via website
The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. A combined regulatory analysis (RA) and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis follows.
This proposed rule would establish the following two security zones: (1) A half-mile stretch of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal; and (2) a one-mile section of Rehoboth Beach stretching 500 yards from the shoreline. The enforcement of these two security zones is expected to be intermittent. Vessels would normally be allowed to transit but not stop within the security zones. However, when persons protected by the USSS are moving in or out of the area, the Coast Guard may halt traffic in these two security zones. The Coast Guard expects such instances to happen relatively infrequently and for a short duration (1-3 hours).
In order to implement this rule, the Coast Guard proposes to station Coast Guard personnel at the borders of the security zones with the authority to enforce this security zone. In the few instances where USSS protectees are in transit, these Coast Guard personnel would ensure that no traffic transits through the security zones. Recreational boaters wishing to transit the area may inquire directly with the Coast Guard personnel posted at the boundaries of the security zones, rather than being required to contact the COTP.
Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed rule's costs and qualitative benefits.
The Coast Guard does not collect data on the vessels and individuals using either the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal or the North Shores Section of Rehoboth Beach, the areas that would be impacted by this proposed rule. To estimate the affected population, we used information directly observable from Google Maps, as well as the subject-matter expertise of Coast Guard personnel with knowledge of the area.
The proposed two security zones—a half-mile section of the Lowes Rehoboth Canal and a one-mile section of Rehoboth Beach—are distinct. As such, we assess the affected populations for these two areas separately.
This proposed regulation would impact any recreational boater wishing to transit the Lewes Rehoboth Canal. The Lewes Rehoboth Canal is about 10 miles long and connects the Broadkill River and the Delaware Bay to Rehoboth Bay. The security zone would begin approximately two-thirds of the way through the canal (if starting from the Delaware Bay) and last for about a half mile. As such, recreational boaters wishing to transit the canal from the communities of Lewes, Dewey Beach, North Shores, Rehoboth Beach, and West Rehoboth may be impacted by this proposed rule.
These communities are seasonal; their populations are much larger and more active in the summer than in the winter. Vessel traffic in the canal follows the same pattern. Coast Guard officers stationed in this region estimated the numbers of vessels transiting this zone per day by season. We present these estimates in table 2.
The vessel traffic in the canal is entirely recreational. There are no commercial vessels that transit the canal. Moreover, the canal is quite shallow. The Coast Guard's 27-foot vessels navigate the canal with difficulty because of the depth. Kayaks, canoes, and other manually powered watercraft are frequently used in the canal (not counted in the daily vessel traffic estimates).
In addition to the daily traffic of recreational boaters wishing to transit the security zone, there are a number of boat slips located either within the security zone or require transiting the security zone to access. There are also houses that border sections of the canal wholly inside the security zone. We reviewed satellite images from Google Maps to identify the number of boat slips within the security zone or require transiting the security zone to access. Based on these satellite images, we estimate that 17 private houses that lie entirely within the canal security zone contain either a boat slip or dock. The boat slips indicate that recreational vessel usage might be undertaken by the owners or occupiers of these properties. Because they lie fully inside the security zone, they would be impacted every time they took out their vessels.
Additionally, a small man-made canal branches off the main Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and leads into a small man-made lake. The southern edge of the safety zone continues just past the entrance to this second canal. Private houses and the North Shores Marina inhabit the land surrounding the second canal and its adjoining lake. Some of these houses contain docks or boat slips. Recreational vessel operators would require transiting through the security zone to reach either the boat slips at these private homes or the North Shores Marina. Use of this canal and lake is primarily local and by small recreational vessels, as this second canal may only be 3 feet deep in certain places. Using Google Maps, we count 14 boat slips or docks connected to private houses and 30 spaces for recreational vessels at the North Shores Marina.
This proposed rule would also impact any recreational boaters that would transit the area 1 mile by 500 yards offshore of the North Shores section of Rehoboth Beach. Because of its proximity to the shore, the Coast Guard does not estimate than any recreational boaters or commercial vessels routinely operate in this section of the ocean. Vessels operating this close to shore could face additional hazards due to the surf and other marine currents and would avoid this area.
As above, we assess the costs to the two security zones separately.
In table 2, we present the Coast Guard's estimate of the average vessel traffic. Under normal course of operations, the Coast Guard anticipates that recreational boaters transiting the canal would have a very brief conversation with the Coast Guard official stationed at the entrance to the security zone. Recreational boaters would then proceed through the security zone (without stopping or loitering) and exit the security zone. We anticipate that this conversation would last between 15 and 30 seconds per recreational boater. Because we do not know how many recreational boaters are on the average boat and because of how small the amount of time per recreational boaters is likely to be, we do not estimate the total costs of these conversations.
Additionally, above we discussed that there are a number of houses and a marina that are contained within the security zone or would require transiting the security zone in order to access. The Coast Guard observes that recreational vessel operators who reside or are visiting a location inside the security zone should be able to relay this information to the Coast Guard personnel stationed at the entrance of the security zone. When recreational boaters provide this additional information, it may increase the duration of the conversation. However, there are only 17 houses with private docks or boat slips contained within the security zone. It is likely, therefore, that the Coast Guard personnel stationed at either end of the security zone would
In order to access the private docks and boat slips of the 14 houses and the North Shores Marina, recreational vessel operators would need to transit through a small portion of the security zone. The Coast Guard would interpret the vessels seeking to access this second canal as innocent passage. As a result, the Coast Guard personnel do not intend to converse with recreational boaters intending to access the second canal unless they notice suspicious activity. Instead, Coast Guard personnel would report vessels transiting the second canal to the USSS representatives. Because Coast Guard personnel would not converse with the recreational vessel operators transiting this region, we estimate that there would be no costs on boaters who only pass through the lower stretch of the canal security zone in order to access the North Shores Marina or the private houses on the canal or lake.
The costs discussed above cover the normal operations when access to the canal is still permitted. However, when certain individuals protected by USSS are transiting the area, the Coast Guard may shut down access to the canal. Such closures could last from 1 to 3 hours, or longer. If the security zone is closed to all traffic, recreational boaters would not be able to transit the length of the canal. Recreational boaters wishing to transit through the security zone would be unable to do so.
If this closure happens suddenly, recreational boaters could be stranded on either side of the canal. The distance through the canal is about 10 miles, but to avoid the canal by taking a more circuitous route around Rehoboth Beach would add 25 miles to the journey. Additionally, a significant portion of this distance requires operations in the Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean is considerably rougher than the intracoastal waterways. As a result, many of the recreational watercraft unable to transit the security zone may be unable to take an alternate route, either because they may not have a vessel suitable to a coastwise route or may not have the time to add an additional 25 miles on to the journey.
Because we do not know the frequency or duration of full closures of the security zone, we are unable to quantitatively assess the costs to either temporarily stranded vessel operators or to vessel operators wishing to transit the closed waterway. Public comments as to the frequency and use of the canal in this security zone are encouraged.
We do not estimate that any vessels would routinely operate in this section of Rehoboth Beach, as discussed in the Affected Population section above. Additionally, were recreational vessel operators to transit this security zone, it is far easier to exit or avoid the security zone than in the canal. Recreational boaters merely would need to be greater than 500 yards from shore. As a result, we do not estimate any costs incurred by the second proposed security zone.
Upon request by the USSS for the Coast Guard to implement security measures in certain sections of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal and certain sections offshore from Rehoboth Beach, the Coast Guard is proposing to create two security zones covering these areas. The security zones are necessary to prevent waterside threats and incidents that could impact the safety and security of USSS protectees when present in the area.
Both security zones aid the USSS in controlling the area and preventing actors wishing to cause harm to the functioning of the U.S. Government by attacking persons protected by the USSS. Were such an attack to be attempted or to occur, the societal impacts could be sizable and potentially severe to the Nation's Government. Additionally, the local impacts would be substantial as well. The area could be closed for a significant period as any necessary investigations occur. This proposed regulatory action would greatly decrease the likelihood of these potential impacts. The Coast Guard has no way to quantify the frequency of malfeasant actors or the extent to which this proposed rule would diminish the frequency of their attempted or successful actions. However, we believe that the value of these benefits would be greater than the costs of the proposed regulation.
We considered alternatives to the proposed regulatory action to determine if an alternative could accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and could minimize any economic impact on small entities. In developing this rule, the Coast Guard considered the following alternatives:
Without this proposed rule, malfeasant actors could have unfettered access to locations near persons protected by USSS. We believe that this unfettered access presents an unacceptable security risk to the United States. As such, we rejected this alternative.
The Coast Guard considered closing the security zone to traffic entirely, which would have had the added cost of making it impossible to fully transit the canal. We rejected this alternative because there are potentially over 200 recreational boaters a day transiting the proposed security zones in the summer. These boaters would lose their ability to have recreational access of the waterway and any enjoyment that provides them. Additionally, 31 homes with boat slips and a marina with 30 spots are inaccessible without transiting the security zones. These homes, despite existing on the canal with a dock, would be unable to use the waterway. Consequently, we rejected this alternative because the costs would be too high.
This is our preferred alternative and discussed throughout the regulatory analysis. We believe it balances the costs to public in the form of quick conversations with transiting recreational vessels and the occasional inconvenience of a temporary canal closure due to USSS protectees moving around the area with the benefits of ensuring the security of these protected persons.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 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 people.
As discussed above, the affected population is entirely recreational. As a result, the individuals impacted by this
Therefore, 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. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under Section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370(f)), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves two security zones for the protection of USSS protectees while present in the vicinity of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60a] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(2) Entry into or remaining in a security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative when the security zones are being enforced. At the start of each enforcement, all persons and vessels within the security zone must depart the zones immediately or obtain authorization from the COTP or designated representative to remain within either zone. All vessels authorized to remain in the zone(s) must proceed as directed by the COTP or designated representative.
(3) A person or vessel operator who intends to enter or transit the security zones while the zones are being enforced must obtain authorization from the COTP or designated representative. While the zones are being enforced the COTP or designated representative will determine access to the zones on a case-by-case basis. A person or vessel operator requesting permission to enter or transit the security zone may contact the COTP or designated representative at 215-271-4807 or on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz), or by visually or verbally hailing the on-scene law enforcement vessel enforcing the zone. On-scene Coast Guard personnel enforcing this section can be contacted on marine band radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The operator of a vessel must proceed as directed upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means. When authorized by the COTP or designated representative to enter the security zone all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the security zone.
(4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, a person or operator of a vessel must proceed as directed. Failure to comply with lawful direction may result in expulsion from the regulated area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(5) Unless specifically authorized by on scene enforcement vessels, no vessel or person will be permitted to stop or anchor in the security zone. A vessel granted permission to enter or transit within the security zone(s) must do so without delay or pause for the entirety of its time within the boundaries of the security zone(s). At times, for limited duration, it is anticipated that vessels may be prohibited from entering the zone due to movement of persons protected by USSS. During those times, the Coast Guard will provide actual notice to vessels in the area.
(6) The U.S. Coast Guard may secure the entirety of either or both security zones if deemed necessary to address security threats or concerns.
(7) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(d)
(2) These security zones may be enforced individually or simultaneously.
Postal Service
Proposed rule; request for comments.
The Postal Service proposes to revise
We must receive your comments on or before July 6, 2021.
Mail or deliver comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service®, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, RM 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. You may inspect and photocopy all written comments at USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 11th Floor N, Washington DC by appointment only between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday by calling 1-202-268-2906 in advance. Email comments, containing the name and address of the commenter, to:
Kathy Frigo at 202-268-4178 or Dale Kennedy at 202-268-6592.
On May 28, 2021, the Postal Service filed a notice of mailing services price adjustments with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), effective on August 29, 2021. The Postal Service proposes to revise Notice 123,
This proposed rule describes the price changes for the following market dominant international services:
The Postal Service plans to increase prices for single-piece FCMI postcards, letters, and flats by approximately 8.4%. The proposed price for a single-piece postcard will be $1.30 worldwide. The First-Class Mail International letter nonmachinable surcharge will increase to $0.30. The proposed FCMI single-piece letter and flat prices will be as follows:
The Postal Service plans to increase prices for certain market dominant international extra services including:
Fee: $17.15.
Fee: $4.75.
Fee: per piece $7.05.
Fee: Cards $1.75; Envelopes up to 2 ounces $2.25.
Following the completion of Docket No. R2021-2, the Postal Service will adjust the prices for products and services covered by the International Mail Manual. These prices will be on Postal Explorer at
Accordingly, although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comment on the following proposed changes to
Foreign relations, International postal services.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 20 is proposed to be 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, 407, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
New prices will be listed in the updated Notice 123,
Postal Service
Proposed rule.
On May 28, 2021 the Postal Service (USPS®) filed a notice of mailing services price adjustments with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), effective August 29, 2021. This proposed rule contains the revisions to
Submit comments on or before July 6, 2021.
Mail or deliver written comments to the Manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. If sending comments by email, include the name and address of the commenter and send to
These records are available for review on Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.-4 p.m., by calling 202-268-2906.
Jacqueline Erwin at (202) 268-2158, or Dale Kennedy at (202) 268-6592.
Proposed prices will be available under Docket No. R2021-2 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's website at
The Postal Service's proposed rule includes: Changes to prices, mail classification updates, product simplification efforts, and a few minor revisions to the DMM.
The Postal Service is proposing to offer additional discounts to move additional USPS Marketing Mail High Density flats to direct pallets.
Flat shaped pieces on direct pallets are operationally desirable, pallets can be directly cross docked to the Destination Delivery Units (DDUs). These pallets consist of Carrier Route and finer sorted bundles such as High Density, High Density Plus, and Saturation. The nature of their make-up allows the Postal Service to avoid moving these pallets to bundle sorters within the plant, sorting the bundles, and moving these bundles back to the dock to be transported to the DDU.
Currently, the rate structure for all nonautomation letters only offers one price for machinable and nonmachinable letters and a nonmachinable surcharge for pieces that are nonmachinable.
The Postal Service is proposing to offer two prices for machinable letters, AADC and Mixed AADC; and three prices for nonmachinable letters, 5-digit, 3-digit, and Mixed ADC. This structural change will reduce revenue at risk and better align prices for customers mailing nonautomation letters, machinable and nonmachinable. This change will also eliminate the nonmachinable surcharge applicable to nonautomation presort letters.
Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comments on the following proposed revisions to
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes if our proposal is adopted.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be 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.
Commercial First-Class Mail Presorted cards and letters are charged as follows: [
* * *b. Letters: * * *
2. Machinable (Presorted): One price per presort level up to the maximum 3.5 ounces.
3. Nonmachinable: One price per presort level up to the maximum 3.5 ounces.* * *
[Remove current 5.3.1c entirely; re-letter current 5.3.1d to 5.3.1c; to read as follows:]
* * *a. 5-digit (required); 10-piece minimum; red Label 5 or optional endorsement line (OEL); labeling not required for pieces in full 5-digit trays.
b. 3-digit (required); 10-piece minimum; green Label 3 or OEL.
c. Mixed ADC (required); no minimum; tan Label X or OEL.
[Remove current 5.3.2c entirely; re-letter current 5.3.2d to 5.3.2c; to read as follows:]
* * * c. Mixed ADC (required); no minimum; labeling:
1. Line 1: Use L201; for mail originating in ZIP Code areas in Column A, use “MXD” followed by city, state, and 3-digit ZIP Code prefix in Column C (use “MXD” instead of “OMX” in the destination line and ignore Column B).
2. Line 2: “FCM LTR MANUAL WKG.”
[Add new section 6.5.3; to read as follows:]
High Density—CR Bundles/Pallet prices apply to each piece in a carrier route bundle of 10 or more pieces that are palletized under 705.8.0 on a 5-digit carrier route, 5-digit carrier routes, or 5-digit scheme carrier route pallet entered at an Origin (None), DNDC, DSCF, or DDU entry.
[Add new second sentence to 8.10.3; to read as follows:]
* * * For USPS Marketing Mail High Density flats price eligibility, only 5-digit pallets under 8.10.3a-c are allowed, and the pallets must be entered under None, DNDC, DSCF or DDU standards (Use “HD/HD+ DIRECT” for one route and “HD/HD+ CR-RTS” for multiple routes on the line 2 contents description).* * * Preparation sequence and labeling:
[Revise sub-section 8.10.3a2; to read as follows:]
* * * 2. “STD” followed by “FLTS”; followed by “HD/HD+” for High Density flats pricing eligibility; followed by “CARRIER ROUTES” (or “CR-RTS”); followed by “SCHEME” (or “SCH”).* * *
[Revise 8.10.3b2; to read as follows:]
2. Line 2: For flats and Marketing parcels (Product Samples only), “STD FLTS” or “STD MKTG,” as applicable; followed by “HD/HD+” for High Density flats pricing eligibility; followed by “CARRIER ROUTES” (or “CR-RTS”). For letters, “STD LTRS”; followed by “CARRIER ROUTES” (or “CR-RTS”); followed by “BC” if pallet contains barcoded letters; followed by “MACH” if pallet contains machinable letters; followed by “MAN” if pallet contains nonmachinable letters.
[Add new 8.10.3c, re-letter current 8.10.3c-8.10.h to 8.10.3d-8.10.3i; to read as follows:]
c. 5-digit carrier route, required for High Density flats pricing eligibility, permitted for bundles. Pallet must contain only carrier route mail for one carrier and same 5-digit ZIP Code. Labeling
[Revise prices as applicable.]
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for Reconsideration.
Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by David Silver, on behalf of The Aerospace Industries Association; D. Cary Mitchell, on behalf of The Blooston Rural Carriers; and Carri Bennet, on behalf of The Rural Wireless Association, Inc.
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before June 18, 2021. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before June 28, 2021.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Joyce Jones, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418-1327 or
This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3174, released May 20, 2021. The full text of the Petitions can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:
Administrative Conference of the United States.
Notice.
The Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States will meet during a one-day virtual plenary session to consider proposed recommendations and to conduct other business. Written comments may be submitted in advance, and the meeting will be accessible to the public.
The meeting will take place on Thursday, June 17, 2021, from 9:00 a.m.-4:15 p.m. The meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished.
To facilitate participation during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the meeting will be conducted virtually. Information on how to access the meeting will be available on the agency's website prior to the meeting at
Shawne McGibbon, General Counsel (Designated Federal Officer), Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-480-2080; email
The Administrative Conference of the United States makes recommendations to federal agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States regarding the improvement of administrative procedures (5 U.S.C. 594). The membership of the Conference, when meeting in plenary session, constitutes the Assembly of the Conference (5 U.S.C. 595).
Additional information about the proposals and the agenda, as well as any changes or updates to the same, can be found at the 74th Plenary Session page on the Conference's website prior to the start of the meeting:
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is announcing a meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The NOSB assists the USDA in the development of standards for substances to be used in organic production and advises the Secretary of Agriculture on any other aspects of the implementation of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA).
An in-person meeting will be held October 19-21, 2021, from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time (PT) each day and may include a virtual broadcast. The NOSB will hear oral public comments via webinars on Wednesday, October 13, 2021, and Thursday, October 14, 2021, from 12:00 p.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET), and at the in-person meeting on Tuesday, October 19, 2021, and Wednesday, October 20, 2021. The deadline to submit written comments and/or sign up for oral comment at either the webinar or in-person meeting is 11:59 p.m. ET, September 30, 2021.
The webinars are virtual and will be accessed via the internet and/or phone. Access information will be available on the AMS website prior to the webinars. The in-person meeting will take place at the Holiday Inn Sacramento Downtown—Arena, 300 J Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, United States and may be broadcast virtually. Detailed information pertaining to the webinars and in-person meeting, including potential virtual viewing options, can be found at
Ms. Michelle Arsenault, Advisory Committee Specialist, National Organic Standards Board, USDA-AMS-NOP, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 2642-S, STOP 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268; Phone: (202) 997-0115; Email:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 and 7 U.S.C. 6518(e), as amended, AMS is announcing a meeting of the NOSB. The NOSB makes recommendations to USDA about whether substances should be allowed or prohibited in organic production and/or handling, assists in the development of standards for organic production, and advises the Secretary on other aspects of the implementation of the Organic Foods Production Act, 7 U.S.C. 6501
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Utah State Office announces its intent to prepare an EIS for the Gould Wash Flood Protection Project within the Warner Draw Watershed in Washington County, Utah. NRCS is requesting comments to identify significant issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS from all interested all interested individuals. The EIS process will examine existing flood control measures
We will consider comments that we receive by July 6, 2021. Comments received after this date will be considered to the extent possible.
We invite you to submit formal scoping comments. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
To be included on the EIS mailing list, please provide your contact information through any of the comment options above. Please note that any respondent's entire scoping comment, including their personal contact information, may be made publicly available at any time during the EIS process.
Mr. Norm Evenstad; telephone: (801) 524-4569; or email at
The primary purpose for watershed planning and preparation of an EIS is flood prevention and flood damage reduction in Hurricane City, Utah. NRCS will provide technical assistance and financial support for the EIS process and the implementation of the selected alternative. Watershed planning was authorized under Public Law 83-566, the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, and Public Law 78-534, the Flood Control Act of 1944.
This action is needed because 50 percent of all the properties or portions of properties that adjoin Gould Wash through the town of Hurricane, Utah are flooded in any given year. Gould Wash has an uncontrolled drainage area of approximately 64.5 square miles. A total of 650 residences, 99 commercial businesses or offices, and 82 roads currently would be inundated during a 100-year flood. Flood control of Gould Wash is critical to prevent future flood damage and loss of property and life.
Initial agency scoping of this federally assisted action indicates that proposed alternatives may have significant local and regional impacts to the environment. Norm Evenstad, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation of an EIS is needed. This EIS will be prepared as required by section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and NRCS regulations that implement NEPA in 7 CFR part 650.
Consultation with Tribal Nations and interested parties will be conducted as required by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended through 1992) (16 U.S.C. 470f).
In efforts to control Gould Wash as it traverses through Hurricane City, various steps have been taken including hardening the stream banks to prevent erosion and straightening the channel to avoid private property and buildings. During small events these measures suffice in protecting property, however, during a 100-year flood event the channel is overtopped and flooding is widespread throughout Hurricane City. Watershed planning under the EIS will evaluate the effectiveness, environmental effects, and the socio-economic impacts of the original channelization efforts. The results of these analyses will provide the context for determining the environmental, economic, and social effects of considered alternatives for additional (new) flood prevention or flood damage reduction measures for the Gould Wash Flood Protection Project within the Warner Draw Watershed in Washington County, Utah. The focused planning area is 64.5 square miles.
NRCS invited all interested individuals and organizations, public agencies, and Tribes to comment on the scope of the EIS, including the project's purpose and need, alternatives proposed to date, new alternatives that should be considered, specific areas of study that might be needed, and evaluation methods to be used. One scoping meeting to present the project and develop the scope of the EIS was held on Tuesday, February 4, 2020, in the Bryce Canyon Room at the Hurricane Community Center in Hurricane, Utah. A presentation was conducted followed by a group question-and-answer period. Project team members were available for individual questions and discussions.
The objective of the EIS is to formulate and evaluate alternatives for flood prevention or flood damage reduction in the Gould Wash channel through the Town of Hurricane City. Alternatives to be evaluated include the development of dam(s) in the Gould Wash headwaters and modifications of the channel through Hurricane City. The actions will require upland watershed treatments to reduce runoff, major rehabilitation of the channel through town and land use changes in the floodplain.
Potential impacts include wetland and flood plain alteration. Permitting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding potential wetland impacts will be pursued prior to final design and construction. A draft EIS will be prepared and circulated for review and comment by agencies and the public per 40 CFR 1503.1, 1502.20, 1506.11, and 1502.17, and 7 CFR 650.13. NRCS invites agencies and individuals who have special expertise, legal jurisdiction, or interest in the Gould Wash Watershed to participate and identify potential alternatives.
The title and number of the Federal assistance program in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this NOFA applies: 10.904 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Utah State Office announces its intent to prepare an EIS for the Upper Price River Watershed Project within the Upper Price River Watershed in Carbon County, Utah. NRCS is requesting comments to identify significant issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS from all interested individuals. The EIS process will examine existing flood control measures and evaluate additional (new) alternatives identified during scoping.
We will consider comments that we receive by July 6, 2021. Comments
We invite you to submit formal scoping comments. You may submit your comments through one of the methods below:
•
•
•
To be included on the EIS mailing list, please respond to one of the options above with your contact information. Please note that any respondent's entire scoping comment, including their personal contact information, may be made publicly available at any time during the EIS process.
Mr. Norm Evenstad; telephone (801) 524-4569; or email at
The primary purpose for watershed planning and preparation of an EIS is to increase and maintain safe and reliable supplies of water for the local community, increase water conservation, and improve water delivery efficiency in the Upper Price River Watershed in Carbon County, Utah. NRCS will provide technical assistance and financial support for the EIS and the implementation of the selected alternative. Watershed planning was authorized under Public Law 83-566, the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended, and Public Law 78-534, the Flood Control Act of 1944.
Because of a mismatch between the time when snowpack melts in the Upper Price River Watershed and the time when water is in highest demand for agricultural and municipal uses, several municipalities in Carbon County face regular shortages of water during the summer months and must obtain additional water from other sources.
Initial agency scoping of this federally assisted action indicates that proposed alternatives may have significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. Norm Evenstad, NRCS Assistant State Conservationist-Water Resources, has determined that the preparation of an EIS is needed. This EIS will be prepared as required by section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and NRCS regulations that implement NEPA in 7 CFR part 650.
Consultation with Tribal Nations and interested parties will be conducted as required by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended through 1992) (16 U.S.C. 470f).
The project seeks to reduce the regular water shortages several municipalities in Carbon County experience during the summer months. Major problems consist of a lack of water for crops and pasture, fences, farmsteads, machinery, buildings, livestock, county and township roads and bridges, and urban areas in the cities of Price, Helper, and Wellington, as well as Price Canyon and Scofield Reservoir.
The EIS process will evaluate alternatives that will increase and maintain safe and reliable supplies of water for the local community while increasing water conservation, and improving water delivery efficiency in the Upper Price River Watershed.
Watershed planning under the EIS will evaluate the effectiveness, environmental effects, and socio-economic impacts of the original project measures over the last 64 years. The results of these analyses will provide the context for determining the environmental, economic, and social effects of considered alternatives for additional (new) water retention and supply options for the Carbon County municipalities.
One scoping meeting to present the project and develop the scope of the EIS was held online on Thursday, October 29, 2020. A presentation was conducted followed by a group question-and-answer period. Project team members were available for individual questions and discussions. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record.
The objective of the EIS is to formulate and evaluate alternatives that increase and maintain safe and reliable supplies of water for the community, that increase water conservation, and improve water delivery efficiency. Alternatives to be evaluated include the construction of a new reservoir somewhere in the Upper Price River drainage system, to use abandoned coal mines for water storage, to increase water conservation measures, or a combination of these options.
Potential impacts include wetland and flood plain alteration. Permitting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding potential wetland impacts will be pursued prior to final design and construction. A draft EIS will be prepared and circulated for review and comment by agencies and the public per 40 CFR 1503.1, 1502.20, 1506.11, 1502.17, and 7 CFR 650.13. NRCS invites agencies and individuals who have special expertise, legal jurisdiction, or interest in the Upper Price River Watershed to participate and identify potential alternatives.
The title and number of the Federal assistance program in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this NOFA applies: 10.904 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
On March 8, 2021, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Port of Houston Authority, grantee of FTZ 84, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 84, on behalf of Pepperl+Fuchs, Inc., in Katy, Texas.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 84AC was approved on May 27, 2021, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 84's 2,000-acre activation limit.
On January 27, 2021, AbbVie, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities within Subzone 22S, in North Chicago and Lake County, Illinois.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On October 18, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Chris Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) (“AECA”). Specifically, Rodriguez was convicted of willfully attempting to export, exporting and causing to be exported from the United States to San Pedro Sula, Honduras, defense articles, that is 27 firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, which were and are designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, without having first obtained from the Department of State, a license for such exports or written authorization for such exports. Rodriguez was sentenced to 18 months in prison, supervised release for three years and a $100 assessment. Rodriguez was also placed on the U.S. Department of State Debarred List.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Rodriguez's conviction for violating Section 38 of the AECA, and has provided notice and opportunity for Rodriguez to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”). 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record, including Rodriguez's written response, and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Rodriguez's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of seven years from the date of Rodriguez's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Rodriguez had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable June 3, 2021.
Lauren Caserta, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4737.
On April 20, 2021, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of imports of organic soybean meal from India.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner
On May 26, 2021, the petitioners submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary CVD determination.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners stated the reasons for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination, and Commerce finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated,
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that polyester textured yarn from Indonesia is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable June 3, 2021.
Toni Page or Peter Shaw, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398 or (202) 482-0697, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce initiated this LTFV investigation on November 17, 2020.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The product covered by this investigation is polyester textured yarn from Indonesia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the
The Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum establishes the deadline to submit scope case briefs.
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has preliminarily used an adverse inference when selecting from among the facts otherwise available to determine the margin for PT Polyfin Canggih (Polyfin), one of three companies selected for individual examination in this investigation.
Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, this rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding rates that are zero,
In this investigation, Commerce preliminarily calculated individual estimated weighted-average dumping margins for PT. Asia Pacific Fibers Tbk (Asia Pacific) and PT. Mutu Gading Tekstil (Mutu Gading) that are not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duties as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on-site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification.
Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments on non-scope issues will be provided to interested parties at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in these case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination in the
On April 30, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Asia Pacific and Mutu Gading requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, then the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of polyester textured yarn from Indonesia are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.205(c), and 19 CFR 351.210(g).
The merchandise covered by this investigation, polyester textured yarn, is synthetic multifilament yarn that is manufactured from polyester (polyethylene terephthalate). Polyester textured yarn is produced through a texturing process, which imparts special properties to the filaments of the yarn, including stretch, bulk, strength, moisture absorption, insulation, and the appearance of a natural fiber. This scope includes all forms of polyester textured yarn, regardless of surface texture or appearance, yarn density and thickness (as measured in denier), number of filaments, number of plies, finish (luster), cross section, color, dye method, texturing method, or packaging method (such as spindles, tubes, or beams).
The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheadings 5402.33.3000 and 5402.33.6000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines in this administrative review of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine (Agreement) that signatory Ukrainian producers/exporters Azovstal Iron & Steel Works (Azovstal) and Ilyich Iron and Steel Works (Ilyich), which are subsidiaries of Metinvest Holding LLC (Metinvest), are in compliance with the Agreement and that the Agreement is meeting the statutory requirements under sections 734(b) and (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2018 through October 31, 2019.
Applicable June 3, 2021.
Sally C. Gannon or Jill Buckles, Bilateral Agreements Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0162 or (202) 482-6230, respectively.
On March 24, 2021, Commerce published the
For purposes of this Agreement, the products covered are hot-rolled iron and non-alloy steel universal mill plates (
This merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the Agreement is dispositive. Specifically excluded from subject merchandise within the scope of the Agreement is grade X-70 plate.
As a result of this administrative review, we continue to find Azovstal and Ilyich, collectively participating as Metinvest, to be in compliance with the terms of the Agreement during the POR and that the Agreement is meeting the statutory requirements under sections 734(b) and (d) of the Act. Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(C) of the Act, which specifies that Commerce shall “review the current status of, and compliance with, any agreement by reason of which an investigation was suspended.”
Section 734(b) provides that Commerce may suspend an investigation if the exporters of the subject merchandise who account for substantially all of the imports of that merchandise agree to revise their prices to eliminate completely any amount by which the normal value (NV) of the merchandise which is the subject of the agreement exceeds the export price (or the constructed export price) of that merchandise. In addition, section 734(d) of the Act requires that Commerce be satisfied that suspension of the investigation is in the public interest and that effective monitoring of the agreement is practicable.
Commerce continues to find no evidence of non-compliance by Azovstal and Ilyich with respect to ensuring that subject merchandise is sold in the United States at prices that are at or above the applicable NV determined by Commerce. Therefore, Commerce continues to find for these final results that the Agreement is meeting the statutory requirements of section 734(b) of the Act. In addition, with regard to the requirements of 734(d) of the Act, Commerce continues to find for these final results that the Agreement is in the public interest and that effective monitoring of the Agreement is practicable.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is
Commerce is issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that polyester textured yarn from Thailand is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable June 3, 2021.
Stephanie Berger, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2483.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce initiated this LTFV investigation on November 17, 2020.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The product covered by this investigation is polyester textured yarn from Thailand. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the
The Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum establishes the deadline to submit scope case briefs.
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. In addition, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for Jong Stit Co., Ltd. (Jong Stit). For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination,
Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, Commerce preliminarily assigned a rate based entirely on facts available to Jong Stit. Therefore, the only rate that is not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties any calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on-site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification.
Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments on non-scope issues will be notified to interested parties at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in these case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date of the hearing.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination in the
On April 28, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Sunflag requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of polyester textured yarn from Thailand are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.205(c) and 19 CFR 351.210(g).
The merchandise covered by this investigation, polyester textured yarn, is synthetic multifilament yarn that is manufactured from polyester (polyethylene terephthalate). Polyester textured yarn is produced through a texturing process, which imparts special properties to the filaments of the yarn, including stretch, bulk, strength, moisture absorption, insulation, and the appearance of a natural fiber. This scope includes all forms of polyester textured yarn, regardless of surface texture or appearance, yarn density and thickness (as measured in denier), number of filaments, number of plies, finish (luster), cross section, color, dye method, texturing method, or packaging method (such as spindles, tubes, or beams).
The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheadings 5402.33.3000 and 5402.33.6000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that polyester textured yarn (yarn) from Malaysia is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable June 3, 2021.
Daniel Alexander, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4313.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce initiated this investigation on November 17, 2020.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The product covered by this investigation is polyester textured yarn from Malaysia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
The Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum establishes the deadline to submit scope case briefs.
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act and normal values in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination,
Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding rates that are zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for each of the companies listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin as determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin as established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on-site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification.
Case briefs or other written comments regarding non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments will be provided to interested parties at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce's regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On May 18, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Recron requested in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.205(c), and 19 CFR 351.210(g).
The merchandise covered by this investigation, polyester textured yarn, is synthetic multifilament yarn that is manufactured from polyester (polyethylene terephthalate). Polyester textured yarn is produced through a texturing process, which imparts special properties to the filaments of the yarn, including stretch, bulk, strength, moisture absorption, insulation, and the appearance of a natural fiber. This scope includes all forms of polyester textured yarn, regardless of surface texture or appearance, yarn density and thickness (as measured in denier), number of filaments, number of plies, finish (luster), cross section, color, dye method, texturing method, or packaging method (such as spindles, tubes, or beams).
The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheadings 5402.33.3000 and 5402.33.6000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that polyester textured yarn from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is April 1, 2020, through September 30, 2020. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable June 3, 2021.
Preston Cox or Yang Jin Chun, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5041 or (202) 482-5760, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce initiated this LTFV investigation on November 17, 2020.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The product covered by this investigation is polyester textured yarn from Vietnam. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
The Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum establishes the deadline to submit scope case briefs.
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce has calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
In addition, Commerce has relied on facts available under section 776(a) of the Act to determine the cash deposit rate assigned to the Vietnam-wide entity. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, because the Vietnam-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the Commerce's request for data, Commerce preliminarily has relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for the Vietnam-wide Entity. For a complete description of the methodology
In the
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on-site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification.
Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments on non-scope issues will be announced at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the due date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date of the hearing.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On April 29, 2021, the Century Single Entity requested that Commerce postpone its final determination and extend the provisional measures period from four to no more than six months pursuant to pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e).
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, then the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c) and 19 CFR 351.210(g).
The merchandise covered by this investigation, polyester textured yarn, is synthetic multifilament yarn that is manufactured from polyester (polyethylene terephthalate). Polyester textured yarn is produced through a texturing process, which imparts special properties to the filaments of the yarn, including stretch, bulk, strength, moisture absorption, insulation, and the appearance of a natural fiber. This scope includes all forms of polyester textured yarn, regardless of surface texture or appearance, yarn density and thickness (as measured in denier), number of filaments, number of plies, finish (luster), cross section, color, dye method, texturing method, or packaging method (such as spindles, tubes, or beams).
The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheadings 5402.33.3000 and 5402.33.6000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable June 3, 2021.
Alex Wood or Benjamin A. Luberda, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1959 and (202) 482-2185, respectively.
On February 1, 2021, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of pentafluoroethane (R-125) from the People's Republic of China (China).
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner
On May 21, 2021, the petitioner submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation.
For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from the People's Republic of China (China) would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable June 3, 2021.
Theodore Pearson, Office I, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2631.
On November 10, 2010, Commerce published the CVD Order on seamless pipe from China in the
On March 3, 2021, Commerce received an adequate substantive response collectively from the domestic industry within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
On March 23, 2021, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission that it did not receive an adequate substantive response from respondent interested parties.
The scope of this order consists of certain seamless carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (
Specifically excluded from the scope of the order are: (1) All pipes meeting aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing specifications; (2) all pipes meeting the chemical requirements of ASTM A-335, whether finished or unfinished; and (3) unattached couplings. Also excluded from the scope of the order are all mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat exchange tubing, except when such products conform to the dimensional requirements,
The merchandise covered by the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050, 7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 7304.39.0072, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015, 7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, and 7304.59.8070.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely notification of destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that exporters/producers of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR), January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
Applicable June 3, 2021.
Jolanta Lawska, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-8362.
On March 7, 1986, Commerce published in the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
On May 11, 2020, Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Erbosan) timely filed a no-shipments certification.
Additionally, on June 8, 2020, the Borusan Companies submitted a letter to Commerce timely certifying that Borusan Istikbal, Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari San ve Tic. (Borusan Fabrikalari), Borusan Gemlik Boru Tesisleri A.S. (Borusan Gemlik), Borusan Ihracat Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S. (Borusan Dagitim), Tubeco Pipe and Steel Corporation (Tubeco), and Borusan Lojistik Dagitim Depolama Tasimacilik ve Ticaret A.S. (Borusan Lojistik) had no entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise during the POR.
Regarding Erbosan, the results of the query Commerce performed on the trade database maintained by CBP indicated that shipments produced and/or exported by Erbosan entered the United States during the POR.
In accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4), for the period January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, we determine that the net subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be as follows:
Consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For the companies for which we intend to rescind this review, upon issuance of the final rescission, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, upon issuance of the final results, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for each of the companies listed above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, except, where the rate calculated in the final results is zero or
We will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Parties are reminded that briefs and hearing requests are to be filed electronically using ACCESS and that electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of partially closed meeting.
The Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Judges Panel) will meet on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern time. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss and review the role and responsibilities of the Judges Panel and information received from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in order to ensure the integrity of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Award) selection process. The agenda will include: Judges Panel roles and processes; Baldrige Program updates; new business/public comment; lessons learned from the 2020 judging process; and the 2021 Award process. A portion of this meeting is closed to the public in order to protect the proprietary data to be examined and discussed.
The Judges Panel will meet on Wednesday, June 16, 2021 from 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The portion of the meeting that is closed to the public will take place on Wednesday, June 16, 2021 from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The meeting will be a virtual meeting by webinar. Please note admittance instructions under the
Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, email
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award will meet on Wednesday, June 16, 2021 from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The
The open portion of the meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time will include discussions on the Judges Panel roles and processes and Baldrige program updates and is open to the public. Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Panel's business are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately 30 minutes will be reserved for public comments and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but is likely to be about three minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Requests must be submitted by email to Robyn Verner at
The portion of the meeting from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time will include discussions on lessons learned from the 2020 judging process and on the 2021 Award process, and is closed to the public in order to protect the proprietary data to be examined and discussed. The Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the Assistant General Counsel for Employment, Litigation and Information, formally determined, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that a portion of the meeting of the Judges Panel may be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) because the meeting is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person which is privileged or confidential and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) because for a government agency the meeting is likely to disclose information that could significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. Portions of the meeting involve examination of prior year Award applicant data. Award applicant data are directly related to the commercial activities and confidential information of the applicants.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), this
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposed extension of a collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to comments received by July 6, 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.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposed extension of a collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to comments received by July 6, 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 revision and extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed revision and extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by August 2, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0246, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Kimberly Ziegler, 571-372-6095.
DFARS 245.302 concerns contracts with foreign governments or
DFARS 245.604-3 concerns the sale of surplus Government property. Under paragraph (b), a contractor may be directed by the plant clearance officer to issue informal invitations for bids. Under paragraph (d), a contractor may be authorized by the plant clearance officer to purchase or retain Government property at less than cost if the plant clearance officer determines this method is essential for expeditious plant clearance.
The contract clause at DFARS 252.245-7003, Contractor Property Management System Administration, prescribed at 245.107(5), addresses the requirement for contractors to respond in writing to initial and final determinations from the administrative contracting officer that identifies deficiencies in the contractor's property management system.
DD Form 1348-1A, DoD Single Line Item Release/Receipt Document, is prescribed at DFARS 245.7001-3 for use when authorized by the plant clearance officer.
DD Form 1639, Scrap Warranty, is prescribed in the clause at DFARS 252.245-7004, Reporting, Reutilization, and Disposal. When scrap is sold by the contractor, after Government approval, the purchaser of the scrap material(s) may be required to certify, by signature on the DD Form 1639, that (i) the purchased material will be used only as scrap and (ii), if sold by the purchaser, the purchaser will obtain an identical warranty from the individual buying the scrap from the initial purchaser. The warranty contained in the DD Form 1639 expires five years from the date of the sale.
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open virtual meeting.
This notice announces an online virtual meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this online virtual meeting be announced in the
Monday, June 28, 2021; 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m.
Amy Boyette, Office of External Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952-6120; email:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the East 300 Upgrade Project (Project), proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) in Passaic and Sussex Counties, New Jersey and Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. The EIS will tier off Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) and its findings and conclusions for the Project issued on February 19, 2021, and respond to comments filed on the EA.
The production of the EIS is part of the Commission's overall National Environmental Policy Act review process. Commission staff will independently analyze the proposed Project and prepare a draft EIS, which will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any draft and
This notice identifies the Commission staff's planned schedule for completion of a final EIS for the Project, which is based on an issuance of the draft EIS in July 2021.
If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for the Project, which includes: Federal, State, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed Project.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 1).
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. 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. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Take notice that on May 18, 2021, Enable Gas Transmission, LLC (EGT), 910 Louisiana Street, 48th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and EGT's blanket certificate issued in Docket Nos. CP82-384-000 and CP82-384-001, for authorization to abandon in place all existing compressor units and related major and minor auxiliary facilities at its Taylor Compressor Station in Columbia County, Arkansas, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions regarding this prior notice request should be directed to Lisa Yoho, Senior Director, Regulatory and FERC Compliance, Enable Gas Transmission, LLC, 910 Louisiana Street, 48th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002, at (346) 701-2539 or by email to
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 26, 2021. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
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
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before July 26, 2021. 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.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-450-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: 910 Louisiana Street, 48th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002, or email (with a link to the document) at:
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Marcus Hook Electric Compression Project (Project), proposed by Adelphia Gateway, LLC (Adelphia) in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The EIS will tier off Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) and its findings and conclusions for the Project issued on February 9, 2021, and respond to comments filed on the EA.
The production of the EIS is part of the Commission's overall National Environmental Policy Act review process. Commission staff will independently analyze the proposed Project and prepare a draft EIS, which will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
This notice identifies the Commission staff's planned schedule for completion of a final EIS for the Project, which is based on an issuance of the draft EIS in June 2021.
If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for the Project which includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; Native American Tribes; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed Project.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 1).
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. 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. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to attend; however, participation will be limited between the Commission's staff, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and California State Historic Preservation Office. Please email the FERC contact noted above by June 9, 2021, to receive specific instructions on how to attend. The meeting will be held remotely using Microsoft Teams.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Hickory Park Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 16, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Take notice that on May 17, 2021, Dominion Energy Overthrust Pipeline, LLC (DEOP), 333 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208(b) and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and DEOP's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-493-000, for authorization to construct, own and maintain additional piping and valves within five separate station yards located along the pipeline all within the state of Wyoming. The Point of Rocks West Project (Project) would create 130,000 Dekatherms per day of new capacity flowing east to west from Wamsutter to Opal. DEOP states that no new compression would be installed, and DEOP states that minimal ground disturbance is anticipated for the Project. DEOP estimates the cost of the Project to be approximately $4.866 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions regarding this prior notice request should be directed to Greg Williams, Regulatory Specialist, Dominion Energy Services, 333 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, at (801) 324-5370 or
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: You can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 26, 2021. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
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
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before July 26, 2021. 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.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-449-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: 333 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 or email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 16, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the East Lateral XPress Project (Project), proposed by Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf) in Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Mary, and Lafourche Parishes, Louisiana. The EIS will tier off Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) and its findings and conclusions for the Project issued on March 16, 2021, and respond to comments filed on the EA.
The production of the EIS is part of the Commission's overall National Environmental Policy Act review process. Commission staff will independently analyze the proposed Project and prepare a draft EIS, which will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
This notice identifies the Commission staff's planned schedule for completion of a final EIS for the Project, which is based on an issuance of the draft EIS in June 2021.
If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for the Project which includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed Project.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 1).
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. 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. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the North Baja XPress Project (Project), proposed by North Baja Pipeline, LLC (North Baja) in La Paz County, Arizona and Imperial County, California. The EIS will tier off Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) and its findings and conclusions for the Project issued on September 8, 2020, and respond to comments filed on the EA.
The production of the EIS is part of the Commission's overall National Environmental Policy Act review process. Commission staff will independently analyze the proposed Project and prepare a draft EIS, which will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
This notice identifies the Commission staff's planned schedule for completion of a final EIS for the Project, which is based on an issuance of the draft EIS in July 2021.
If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for the Project, which includes: Federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed Project.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 1).
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. 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. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
On May 17, 2021, South Sutter Water District submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for a Clean Water Act Section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the California State Water Resources Control Board (California Water Board), in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6, we hereby notify the California Water Board of the following:
If the California Water Board fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request by the above waiver date, then the agency's certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Enhancement by Compression Project (Project), proposed by Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois) in Greene and Dutchess Counties, New York and Fairfield and New Haven Counties, Connecticut. The EIS will tier off Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) and its findings and conclusions for the Project issued on September 30, 2020, and respond to comments filed on the EA.
The production of the EIS is part of the Commission's overall National Environmental Policy Act review process. Commission staff will independently analyze the proposed Project and prepare a draft EIS, which will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
This notice identifies the Commission staff's planned schedule for completion of a final EIS for the Project, which is based on an issuance of the draft EIS in June 2021.
If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for the Project which includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed Project.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 1).
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. 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. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.
In accordance with section the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is given of a proposed consent decree in
Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by July 6, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0351, online at
EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information from the CDC, local area health departments, and our federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
Geoffrey L. Wilcox, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-5601; email address:
The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0351) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree.
The electronic version of the public docket for this action contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through
The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to take final
Second, the proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for EPA to take final action pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(2)-(4) to approve, disapprove, conditionally approve, or approve in part and disapprove in part, the SJV PM
Third, the proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for EPA to take final action pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(2)-(4) to approve, disapprove, conditionally approve, or approve in part and disapprove in part, the SJV PM
In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0351, via
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of delegation of authority.
On May 17, 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) a letter acknowledging that Virginia's delegation of authority to implement and enforce the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) had been updated, as provided for under previously approved delegation mechanisms. To inform regulated facilities and the public, EPA is making available a copy of EPA's letter to Virginia through this notice.
On May 17, 2021, EPA sent Virginia a letter acknowledging that Virginia's delegation of authority to implement and enforce certain Federal NSPS and NESHAPs had been updated.
Copies of documents pertaining to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. Copies of Virginia's submittal are also available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 1111 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
Riley Burger, Permits Branch (3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814 2217, or Mr. Burger can also be reached via electronic mail at
On November 12, 2020, Virginia notified EPA that Virginia had updated its incorporation by reference of Federal NSPS, NESHAP, and Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standards to include many such standards, as they were published in final form in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) dated July 1, 2020. On May 17, 2021, EPA sent Virginia a letter acknowledging that Virginia now
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has previously delegated to the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) the authority to implement and enforce various federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories (MACT standards) which are found at 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63, respectively. In those actions, EPA also delegated to Virginia the authority to implement and enforce any future federal NSPS, NESHAP or MACT Standards on the condition that Virginia legally adopt the future standards, make only allowed wording changes, and provide specified notice to EPA.
In a letter dated November 12, 2020, Virginia submitted to EPA revised versions of Virginia's regulations which incorporate by reference specified federal NSPS, NESHAP and MACT standards, as those federal standards had been published in final form in the Code of Federal Regulations dated July 1, 2020. Virginia committed to enforcing the federal standards in conformance with the terms of EPA's previous delegations of authority and made only allowed wording changes.
Virginia stated that it had submitted the revisions “to retain its authority to enforce the NSPSs and NESHAPs under the delegation of authority granted by EPA on August 27, 1981 (46 FR 43300) and to enforce the MACT standards under the delegation of authority granted by EPA on January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3938) and January 8, 2002 (67 FR 825).”
Virginia provided copies of its revised regulations which specify the NSPS, NESHAP and MACT Standards which it had adopted by reference. Virginia's revised regulations are entitled 9 VAC 5-50 “New and Modified Stationary Sources,” and 9 VAC 5-60 “Hazardous Air Pollutant Sources.” These revised regulations have an effective date of November 11, 2020.
Based on Virginia's submittal, EPA acknowledges that EPA's delegations to Virginia of the authority to implement and enforce EPA's NSPS, NESHAP, and MACT standards have been updated, as provided for under the terms of EPA's previous delegation of authority actions, to allow Virginia to implement and enforce the federal NSPS, NESHAP and MACT standards which Virginia has adopted by reference as specified in Virginia's revised regulations 9 VAC 5-50 and 9 VAC 5-60, both effective on November 11, 2020.
Please note that on December 19, 2008, in Sierra Club v. EPA,
Accordingly, EPA no longer allows sources the SSM exemption as provided for in the vacated provisions at 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), even though EPA has not yet formally removed these SSM exemption provisions from the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. Because Virginia incorporated 40 CFR part 63 by reference, Virginia should also no longer allow sources to use the former SSM exemption from the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 due to the Court's ruling in Sierra Club vs. EPA.
EPA appreciates Virginia's continuing NSPS, NESHAP and MACT standards enforcement efforts, and also Virginia's decision to take automatic delegation of additional or updated NSPS, NESHAP and MACT standards by adopting them by reference.
This notice acknowledges the update of Virginia's delegation of authority to implement and enforce NSPS, NESHAP, and MACT standards.
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 collection(s). 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 comments should be submitted on or before August 2, 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 contacts 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.
This information is used to determine if an applicant's proposed system is necessary in light of communications facilities it already owns. Such a determination helps the Commission to equitably distribute limited spectrum and prevents spectrum warehousing.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of re-establishment of the Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council.
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) hereby announces that the Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (hereinafter CSRIC or Council) will be re-established for a two-year period pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and in accordance with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
Suzon Cameron, Designated Federal Officer, Federal Communications Commission, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-1916 or email:
After consultation with the General Services Administration, the Commission intends to re-establish the charter on or before June 30, 2021, providing the Council with authorization to operate for two years.
The purpose of the Council is to advise the Commission and to make recommendations that foster the security, reliability, and interoperability of communications systems.
The CSRIC will be organized under, and will operate in accordance with, the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The Council will be solely advisory in nature. Consistent with FACA and its requirements, each meeting of the Council will be open to the public unless otherwise noticed. A notice of each meeting will be published in the
During the CSRIC's next term, it is anticipated that it will meet in Washington, DC, approximately four (4) times a year. The first meeting will be described in a Public Notice issued and published in the
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 (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. 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 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before August 2, 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 Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
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 August 2, 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 Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
Pursuant to 47 CFR 54.202, 54.301, 54.303, 54.307, 54.309, 54.311, 54.504, 54.407, 54.422, 54.514, 54.515, 54.679, 54.702, 54.802, and 54.902, USAC collects service provider name, phone numbers, other contact information, and remittance information for all four of the universal service support mechanisms—Schools and Libraries, Rural Health Care, High-Cost and Low-Income (commonly referred to as Lifeline). On July 23, 2014, the Commission released an Order and FNPRM (WC Docket No. 13-184, FCC 14-99; 79 FR 49160, August 19, 2014) (
The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act) directs Federal agencies to report financial obligations and standardize the information that recipients of federal funds report to government agencies. To comply with the DATA Act, the DATA Act Business Type is reported on FCC Form 498. When completing or updating this form, service providers and billed entities are required to select up to three business types that best describes the organization.
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 given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice; request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is requesting comment on proposed changes to part II of the Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk (PSR policy) that would expand access to collateralized intraday credit from the Federal Reserve Banks (Reserve Banks) and clarify the eligibility standards for accessing uncollateralized intraday credit from Reserve Banks. These proposed changes build upon the revisions to the PSR policy adopted in 2008 and implemented in 2011, which the Board designed to improve intraday liquidity management and payment flows for the banking system while helping to mitigate the credit exposures of the Reserve Banks from daylight overdrafts. In addition, the Board is requesting comment on changes to part II of the PSR policy to support the deployment of the FedNow
Comments on the proposed changes must be received on or before August 2, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OP-1749, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
Jason Hinkle, Assistant Director (202-912-7805), Michelle Olivier, Lead Financial Institution Policy Analyst (202-452-2404), Brajan Kola, Senior Financial Institution Policy Analyst (202-736-5683) Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, or Evan Winerman, Senior Counsel (202-872-7578), Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. For users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, please contact 202-263-4869.
The PSR policy is intended to foster the safety and efficiency of payment and settlement systems.
In 2008, the Board approved changes to part II of the PSR policy to encourage greater collateralization of daylight overdrafts, recognizing that collateral reduces credit risk to Reserve Banks.
In addition to incentivizing institutions to collateralize their daylight overdrafts, the PSR policy allows institutions that might otherwise be constrained by their uncollateralized net debit caps to request collateralized capacity under the “maximum daylight overdraft capacity” (max cap) program.
Although the PSR policy's dual-pricing framework encourages institutions to collateralize their daylight overdrafts, collateralized capacity under the max cap program is not currently an option for institutions with lower levels of intraday capacity. Institutions that select the “exempt” or “de minimis” net debit cap categories (which do not require a self-assessment) are ineligible to request collateralized capacity under the max cap program. Likewise, institutions with a voluntary zero net debit cap, and institutions that the Reserve Banks have assigned a zero net debit cap because of their account management or financial condition, cannot request collateralized capacity under the max cap program.
Further, obtaining collateralized capacity under the max cap program requires certain administrative steps from and analysis by requesting institutions. First, institutions must provide a business case outlining their need for collateralized capacity, and must submit a board of directors resolution approving the collateralized capacity at least annually and whenever the institution modifies the amount of requested collateralized capacity.
In proposing the changes discussed below, the Board recognizes that the extension of intraday credit to institutions on a collateralized basis generally poses less risk to the Reserve Banks and the payment system than the extension of intraday credit on an uncollateralized basis. As such, the removal of some restrictions on access to collateralized intraday credit could improve the effectiveness of Reserve Bank intraday credit as a liquidity tool without a significant increase in credit risk to the Reserve Banks and the payment system.
In 2020, the Board approved the FedNow Service, a new 24x7x365 real-time gross settlement service with clearing functionality to support end-to-end instant retail payments in the United States.
The PSR policy currently aligns the calculation of daylight overdrafts and the “business day” with the scheduled operating day for the Fedwire Funds Service.
Access to intraday credit will be available on a 24x7x365 basis to FedNow Service participants, including those that use the FedNow Service to send instant payments involving end
Intraday overdrafts occur when an institution has a negative balance in its Federal Reserve account during the Fedwire Funds Service operating day. Overnight overdrafts occur when an institution has a negative account balance at the end of the Fedwire Funds Service operating day. While the PSR policy addresses daylight overdrafts, the Overnight Overdrafts policy addresses overnight overdrafts.
To minimize Reserve Bank exposure to overnight overdrafts, the Overnight Overdrafts policy imposes a penalty fee to discourage institutions from incurring overnight overdrafts.
The Board is proposing to modify the PSR policy to expand access to collateralized capacity and reduce the administrative steps associated with requesting collateralized capacity. With these proposed changes, the Board intends to improve intraday liquidity management and payment flows while assisting the Reserve Banks in managing intraday credit risk. The proposed changes also seek to clarify the terms for accessing uncollateralized intraday credit and the circumstances under which an institution may remain eligible for uncollateralized capacity if its holding company or affiliate is assigned a low supervisory rating.
Additionally, the Board is proposing changes to the PSR policy and the Overnight Overdrafts policy to align these policies with the deployment of the FedNow Service and a 24x7x365 payment environment. Relatedly, the Board is proposing to incorporate the Overnight Overdrafts policy as part III of the PSR policy in order to reflect the close relationship between daylight overdrafts and overnight overdrafts in an institution's account.
The Board is also proposing several technical changes and corrections to the PSR policy. These changes are not substantive in nature and reflect current practices that the Reserve Banks use to administer the PSR policy.
While the Board is collectively requesting comment on the proposed changes discussed below, the proposed changes may become effective at different times. The Board intends for the FedNow Service-related changes to the PSR policy and the Overnight Overdrafts policy to come into effect when the Reserve Banks begin processing transactions associated with the FedNow Pilot Program.
As noted above, while the PSR policy incentivizes collateralization of daylight overdrafts, an institution requesting collateralized capacity above its net debit cap must provide a business case outlining its need and must submit an annual board of directors resolution approving its collateralized capacity. Additionally, collateralized capacity under the max cap program is available only to institutions that have first completed a self-assessment. The Board is proposing amendments to the PSR policy that would expand access to collateralized capacity and reduce the administrative steps associated with requesting collateralized capacity.
The Board proposes to amend section II.E of the PSR policy to expand the pool of institutions eligible to request collateralized capacity. Specifically, while the max cap program is currently limited to institutions with self-assessed net debit caps,
So long as an institution remains at least “undercapitalized,” the institution would remain eligible to request collateralized intraday credit under the max cap program—even if the institution, the holding company, or an affiliate has a “fair,” ”marginal,” or “unsatisfactory” supervisory rating.
The Board is proposing to simplify the process for requesting and maintaining collateralized capacity under the max cap program. Under the current general procedure for requesting a max cap, an institution requesting collateralized capacity must provide a
The Board is proposing to eliminate, in most circumstances, the requirement that institutions provide a written business case to their Reserve Banks when requesting collateralized capacity under the max cap program. Specifically, the Board proposes that an institution would need to provide a written business case only if (1) the institution's requested max cap exceeds the institution's capital measure multiplied by 2.25, which is the cap multiple associated with the “High” self-assessed cap category,
The Board is also proposing to eliminate the requirement that an institution's board of directors submit an annual resolution approving requests for collateralized capacity. Instead, the Board proposes that an institution's board of directors would need to provide a resolution only when the institution initially requests collateralized capacity. Once a Reserve Bank has approved an institution's collateralized capacity, the collateralized capacity would generally remain in place, without the need for further action by the institution, so long as the institution remains at least “undercapitalized.” An institution would need to submit a resolution from its board of directors if the institution requests an increase to its previously approved collateralized capacity.
An institution's collateralized capacity, on any given day, will continue to equal the value of collateral the institution has pledged to the Reserve Bank, not to exceed the difference between the institution's max cap and its net debit cap.
The Board is proposing to amend section II.D of the PSR policy to clarify the terms under which institutions would be eligible to maintain access to their uncollateralized intraday credit capacity. Currently, the PSR policy does not detail when an institution can request and maintain uncollateralized capacity; it states only that “[a]n institution must be financially healthy and have regular access to the discount window in order to adopt a net debit cap greater than zero.”
The Board proposes to clarify in the PSR policy that an institution's eligibility to adopt and maintain a positive net debit cap depends on an assessment of its creditworthiness, which results from the institution's (1) PCA designation or FBO PSR capital category,
As noted in the eligibility criteria, an institution requesting a “high,” “above average,” or “average” net debit cap, must perform a self-assessment of its creditworthiness, intraday funds management and control, customer credit policies and controls, and operating controls and contingency procedures. The Board proposes to clarify in the PSR policy that, if an institution seeks a self-assessed net debit cap, it would be ineligible for a positive net debit cap if its self-assessment results in the lowest possible rating for any one of the four components of the self-assessment in the Guide.
The Board is also proposing revisions to the PSR policy that would clarify the impact of an institution's holding company's or affiliate's supervisory
The Board believes that the proposed change would provide greater certainty to institutions and would allow the Reserve Banks to tailor intraday credit access in response to supervisory developments.
The Board is proposing changes to the PSR policy and the Overnight Overdrafts policy to align these policies with the deployment of the FedNow Service. The proposed changes would modify the PSR policy to address changes associated with a 24x7x365 payment environment. Currently, intraday credit is available only during the Fedwire Funds Service operating day. The Board recognizes that access to 24x7x365 intraday credit would support the smooth functioning of the FedNow Service. Accordingly, the Reserve Banks will offer intraday credit on a 24x7x365 basis to all FedNow Service participants, including those that use the FedNow Service to send instant payments between end users and users of the FedNow LMT.
Reserve Banks expect that FedNow Service participants will manage their master accounts in compliance with Federal Reserve policies. As described further below, FedNow Service participants will need to avoid negative balances at the close of the business day. Negative balances not cured by the end of the business day result in overnight overdrafts.
The Board is proposing to revise section II.A of the PSR policy to define the “business day” as the 24-hour duration beginning immediately after the previous day's regularly-scheduled close of the Fedwire Funds Service and the FedNow Service, and ending with the regularly-scheduled close of the Fedwire Funds Service and the FedNow Service.
Given the continuous, 24-hour nature of the FedNow Service, the opening of the FedNow Service will occur immediately after close. Because FedNow Service participants will have access to intraday credit on a 24-hour basis, the Board believes that daylight overdrafts should be based on a 24-hour business day for all institutions.
The Board is proposing to revise the daylight overdraft and the penalty fee calculations for all institutions in order to reflect the 24-hour business day. Currently, the daylight overdraft fee is calculated using an annual rate of 50 basis points that is prorated to the scheduled duration of the Fedwire Funds operating day.
Similarly, the Board is proposing to adjust the penalty rate for overdrafts under section II.F of the PSR policy to reflect the 24-hour business day.
An institution's daily daylight overdraft charge (or penalty charge) equals the effective daily rate multiplied by the institution's average daily uncollateralized daylight overdraft, which is calculated by dividing the sum of its negative uncollateralized Federal Reserve account balance at the end of each minute by the total number of minutes in the relevant business day. Currently, the relevant business day for this purpose is the Fedwire Funds operating day (1320 minutes under the 22-hour operating day). Under the proposal, the total number of minutes in the relevant business day will increase to 1440 to reflect the 24-hour business day. The increase in the length of the relevant business day from 22 hours to 24 hours will offset in part the increase to the effective daily rate. After accounting for changes to the fee rates and the average uncollateralized daylight overdraft calculation, the Board estimates that gross fees before application of fee waivers would increase by less than 0.4 percent with
The Board is proposing to add a new posting rule in section II.A of the PSR policy to clarify that, for purposes of measuring daylight overdrafts, debits and credits to an institution's master account for funds transfers over the FedNow Service, including FedNow LMT transfers, would post to an institution's account balance as they are processed throughout the 24-hour business day. In this way, debits and credits to an institution's master account related to transfers over the FedNow Service would be treated equivalently to debits and credits related to transfers over the Fedwire Funds Service, Fedwire Securities Service, and the National Settlement Service.
Currently, section II.A of the PSR policy identifies several transaction types that are processed earlier in the day but “[p]ost after the close of Fedwire Funds Service.”
The Board is also proposing to clarify that Fedwire Funds Service and FedNow Service transactions occurring during extensions of the Fedwire Funds Service and the FedNow Service would be backdated so that they post at the regularly scheduled close of the Fedwire Funds and the FedNow Service and not at the end of the extended hours. As a result, a funds transfer occurring during an extension of the Fedwire Funds Service and the FedNow Service would post to an institution's account before the next regularly scheduled business day begins.
The Board is proposing to incorporate the Overnight Overdrafts policy as part III of the PSR policy. The Board believes that incorporating the Overnight Overdrafts policy into the PSR policy would underscore the close relationship between daylight overdrafts and overnight overdrafts.
The Board is also proposing modifications to simplify the Overnight Overdrafts policy and align the Overnight Overdrafts policy with the deployment of the FedNow Service. The Board is proposing that all institutions would continue to be charged an overnight overdraft penalty fee rate equal to the primary credit rate plus 4 percentage points (annual rate) if its Federal Reserve account has a negative balance at the end of the scheduled business day—that is, at the regularly scheduled close of the FedNow Service.
Currently, the penalty fee includes a multiday charge for overnight overdrafts over weekends and holidays. FedNow Service participants that incur an overnight overdraft before a weekend or holiday will have the opportunity to achieve a positive balance before the close of business day on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. Accordingly, the Board proposes that a FedNow Service participant would not automatically incur a multiday charge for an overnight overdraft before a weekend or holiday. However, institutions that are not FedNow Service participants and incur an overnight overdraft before a weekend or holiday will not have the opportunity to achieve a positive balance before the end of the weekend or holiday. Accordingly, these institutions would automatically incur a multiday charge for an overnight overdraft before a weekend or holiday.
The Board is proposing to eliminate the fee-escalation feature in the Overnight Overdrafts policy for all institutions. The current Overnight Overdrafts policy includes a fee-escalation feature where the penalty fee for an overnight overdraft increases by one percentage point for each overnight overdraft after an institution has already experienced three overnight overdrafts in a rolling 12-month period. The escalation feature is rarely triggered since overnight overdrafts are uncommon. Additionally, Reserve Banks have other risk-mitigation tools for institutions that incur frequent overnight overdrafts. For example, Reserve Banks can counsel institutions that incur overnight overdrafts (by letter or phone) and, when necessary, can escalate the counseling to an institution's senior management. Reserve Banks also have discretion to remove an institution's access to intraday credit. Accordingly, the Board believes that maintaining the fee-escalation feature once the FedNow Service launches would add unnecessary complexity to the Overnight Overdrafts policy and would not meaningfully reduce risk to the Reserve Banks.
The Board is also proposing technical changes to the PSR policy. First, the Board proposes to revise a sentence in footnote 61 of the PSR policy, which states that, for purposes of the PSR policy, the Reserve Banks evaluate U.S. branches and agencies of an FBO as a family “because these entities have no existence separate from the FBO.” The Board proposes to amend this provision to state that, because U.S. branches and agencies are part of a single FBO family, all the U.S. offices of FBOs (excluding U.S.-chartered bank subsidiaries and U.S.-chartered Edge subsidiaries) should be treated as a consolidated family relying on the FBO's capital.
Second, the Board proposes to revise a sentence in footnote 76 of the PSR policy, which discusses the streamlined procedure that highly capitalized FBOs can use to request a max cap. The amendment would clarify that the streamlined procedure is available to
The Board is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed changes. The Board also requests comment on the following specific questions:
1. Would the proposed changes help to clarify the conditions for maintaining access to intraday credit for purposes of your institution's liquidity planning and risk management efforts?
2. If the Board were to adopt the proposed simplifications to the procedure for requesting a max cap, should the Board eliminate the existing streamlined process for FBOs to request a max cap in section II.E.2 of the PSR policy? If not, how would FBOs continue to benefit from the streamlined process in section II.E.2?
3. Should the supervisory ratings of an institution's holding company and affiliate(s) continue, as proposed, to be key factors in a Reserve Bank's evaluation of whether an institution is eligible for uncollateralized intraday credit?
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
1.
Section 11(j) of the Federal Reserve Act
2.
3.
4.
5.
When considering changes to an existing service, the Board conducts a competitive impact analysis to determine whether there will be a direct and material adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete effectively with the Federal Reserve in providing similar services due to differing legal powers or the Federal Reserve's dominant market position deriving from such legal differences.
In accordance with section 3512 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (PRA), the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number is 7100-0217. The Board reviewed the PSR policy changes it is considering under the authority delegated to the Board by the OMB. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection technique or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of the capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments on aspects of this notice that may affect reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements and burden estimates
The following portion titled “Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk” will not publish in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Board proposes to revise section II.A of the PSR policy as follows:
A daylight overdraft occurs when an institution's Federal Reserve account is in a negative position during the business day.
Post throughout the business day:
The term “interest and redemption payments” refers to payments of principal,
The Reserve Banks will post these transactions, as directed by the issuer, provided that the issuer's Federal Reserve account contains funds equal to or in excess of the amount of the interest and redemption payments to be made. In the normal course, if a Reserve Bank does not receive funding from an issuer for the issuer's interest and redemption payments by the established cut-off hour of 4:00 p.m. eastern time on the Fedwire Securities Service, the issuer's payments will not be processed on that day.
Post at the close of the Fedwire Funds Service and the FedNow Service
The Board proposes to revise section II.C, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the “Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk” as follows:
Daylight overdraft fees for uncollateralized overdrafts (or the uncollateralized portion of a partially collateralized overdraft) are calculated using an annual rate of 50 basis points, quoted on the basis of a 24-hour day and a 360-day year. The effective daily rate equals the annual rate divided by 360.
An institution's average daily uncollateralized daylight overdraft is calculated by dividing the sum of its negative uncollateralized Federal Reserve account balances at the end of each minute of the regularly scheduled business day by the total number of minutes in the 24-hour business day. A negative uncollateralized Federal Reserve account balance is calculated by subtracting the unencumbered, net lendable value of collateral pledged from the total negative Federal Reserve account balance at the end of each minute. Each positive end-of-minute balance in an institution's Federal Reserve account is set to equal zero. Fully collateralized end-of-minute negative balances are similarly set to zero.
The Board proposes to revise section II.D of the “Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk” as follows:
Each institution incurring uncollateralized daylight overdrafts in its Federal Reserve account must adopt a net debit cap, that is, a ceiling on the total uncollateralized daylight overdraft position that it can incur during any given day. An institution's cap category and capital measure determine the size of its net debit cap. Specifically, the net debit cap is calculated as an institution's cap multiple times its capital measure:
Cap categories and their associated cap levels, set as multiples of an institution's capital measure, are listed below:
Pledging collateral does not increase an institution's net debit cap, although certain institutions may be eligible to obtain additional collateralized capacity in excess of their net debit caps (see section II.E). For the treatment of overdrafts that exceed the net debit cap, see section II.G.
While capital measures differ, the net debit cap provisions of this policy apply similarly to foreign banking organizations (FBOs) as to U.S. institutions. Consistent with practices for U.S.-chartered depository institutions, the Reserve Banks will advise home-country supervisors of the daylight overdraft capacity of U.S. branches and agencies of FBOs under their jurisdiction, as well as of other pertinent information related to the FBOs' caps. The Reserve Banks will also provide information on the daylight overdrafts in the Federal Reserve accounts of FBOs' U.S. branches and agencies in response to requests from home-country supervisors.
An institution must have regular access to the discount window in order to adopt a net debit cap greater than zero. Granting a net debit cap, or any extension of intraday credit, to an institution is at the discretion of the Reserve Bank. As detailed in the following matrix, an institution's eligibility to adopt and maintain a positive net debit cap depends on the institution's creditworthiness as determined by (1) its Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) designation
As described further in section II.D.2.a, an institution seeking to establish a net debit cap category of high, above average, or average must perform a self-assessment of its own creditworthiness, intraday funds management and control, customer credit policies and controls, and operating controls and contingency procedure. An institution that performs a self-assessment will be deemed ineligible for a positive net debit cap if its self-assessment results in the lowest possible rating for any one of the four components of the self-assessment process.
In order to establish a net debit cap category of high, above average, or average, an institution must perform a self-assessment of its own creditworthiness, intraday funds management and control, customer credit policies and controls, and operating controls and contingency procedures.
Some institutions that could obtain positive net debit caps choose to have zero caps. Often these institutions have very conservative internal policies regarding the use of Federal Reserve intraday credit. If an institution that has adopted a zero cap incurs a daylight overdraft, the Reserve Bank counsels the
In addition, a Reserve Bank may assign an institution a zero net debit cap. Institutions that may pose special risks to the Reserve Banks, such as those without regular access to the discount window, those incurring daylight overdrafts in violation of this policy, those that are ineligible for intraday credit based on their supervisory rating and PCA designation/FBO PSR capital category (see section II.A), or those that are otherwise in weak financial condition are generally assigned a zero cap (see section II.F). Recently chartered institutions may also be assigned a zero net debit cap.
Certain institutions with zero caps, including institutions that have been involuntarily assigned a zero cap by a Reserve Bank, may be eligible to request collateralized capacity from their Reserve Bank (see sections II.E). * * *
The Board proposes to revise section II.E of the “Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk” as follows:
Subject to the approval of its administrative Reserve Bank, an eligible institution may pledge collateral to secure collateralized daylight overdraft capacity in addition to uncollateralized capacity from its net debit cap.
Once approved, the Reserve Bank will monitor the institution to ensure that it does not exceed its max cap. Pledging less collateral reduces an institution's effective maximum daylight overdraft capacity level, but pledging more collateral does not increase the maximum daylight overdraft capacity above the approved max cap level.
An institution that wishes to expand its daylight overdraft capacity by pledging collateral should consult with its administrative Reserve Bank. A domestic institution is eligible to request collateralized intraday credit if its PCA designation is “undercapitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” or “well capitalized.”
If an institution is requesting collateralized capacity for the first time, it must submit a resolution from its board of directors indicating its board's approval of the requested max cap. Increases to collateralized capacity previously approved by Reserve Banks will also require a board of directors resolution. In most cases, an institution will not have to provide to a Reserve Bank a business case justifying its request for collateralized capacity. However, an institution must provide a business-case justification if:
• The institution requests a max cap in excess of its capital measure multiplied by 2.25; or
• The administrative Reserve Bank exercises discretion to require that the institution submit a business-case justification due to recent developments in the institution's condition.
Once a Reserve Bank has approved an institution's collateralized capacity, the collateralized capacity will remain in place, without the need for further action by the institution, provided that the institution maintains the eligibility standards outlined above.
An FBO that is highly capitalized
The Board proposes to revise section II.F, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the “Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk” as follows:
Certain institutions are subject to a daylight-overdraft penalty fee levied against the average daily daylight
An overnight overdraft is a negative balance in a Federal Reserve account at the close of the business day. The Board expects institutions to avoid overnight overdrafts.
To minimize the Reserve Banks' exposure to overnight overdrafts, which are not always collateralized, the Board authorizes Reserve Banks to discourage depository institutions from incurring overnight overdrafts by charging a penalty fee. Institutions that do not extinguish their daylight overdrafts and incur overnight overdrafts are subject to ex post counseling in addition to a penalty fee.
The Board establishes the following penalty rate structure for overnight overdrafts:
1. An overnight overdraft penalty rate of the primary credit rate plus 4 percentage points (annual rate).
2. A minimum penalty fee of 100 dollars, regardless of the amount of the overnight overdraft. The minimum fee is administered per each occasion.
3. A charge for each calendar day (including weekends and holidays) that an overnight overdraft is outstanding.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
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 July 6, 2021.
1.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of availability.
NIOSH announces the availability of the final Current Intelligence Bulletin (CIB) 70: Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Silver Nanomaterials.
The final document was published on May 26, 2021 on the CDC website.
The document may be obtained at the following link:
Jay Vietas, (
NIOSH first published a request on December 19, 2012, for information on occupational exposure to silver nanomaterials, possible health effects in workers exposed to silver nanomaterials, toxicology studies of silver nanomaterials in animals and cellular systems, and information on exposure measurement methods, control measures, and other data in the
NIOSH carefully considered the comments received on the revised draft document. Reviewers provided comments on the NIOSH assessment of the potential adverse health effects of occupational exposure to silver nanomaterials, on the data and methods NIOSH used to develop a recommended exposure limit for silver nanomaterials, on the NIOSH recommended methods for assessing and controlling exposures to silver nanomaterials in the workplace, and on the identified data gaps and future research needs. In developing the final document, NIOSH performed an additional systematic literature search in April 2019 to determine if any subsequent studies in animals or humans had been published that pertained to the quantitative risk assessment and the derivation of a REL for silver nanomaterials. No additional studies were found that impacted those topics. NIOSH responded to the public, stakeholder, and peer review comments received and developed the final document consistent with the responses to comments. These comments and the NIOSH responses are available at:
The final CIB provides a comprehensive scientific review of the scientific literature pertaining to occupational exposure to silver nanomaterials. The literature includes studies of exposures to silver nanomaterials in the workplace, toxicological effects of exposure to silver nanomaterials in experimental animal and cellular systems, and effects of particle size and other properties on the toxicological effects of silver. NIOSH assessed the potential health risks of occupational exposure to silver nanomaterials by evaluating the scientific literature. Studies in animals have shown adverse lung and liver effects associated with exposure to silver nanoparticles. Based on an assessment of those data, NIOSH developed a REL for silver nanomaterials. This new REL applies to processes that produce or use silver nanomaterials in the workplace. In addition, NIOSH continues to recommend its existing REL for total silver (metal dust and soluble compounds, as Ag) [
NIOSH further recommends the use of workplace exposure assessments, engineering controls, safe work procedures, training, and education, and established medical surveillance approaches to prevent potential adverse health effects from occupational exposure to silver nanomaterials. NIOSH proposes research needed to fill remaining data gaps on the potential adverse health effects of occupational exposure to silver nanomaterials.
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) seeks approval for a revision to an existing information collection, requesting Refugee Support Services (RSS) grantees and RSS Set Aside grantees to provide the agency name, city, state, website, and funding amount for each contracted sub-grantee. Additionally, ORR seeks approval to have the option to make this information public. This would enhance the accessibility of refugee service provider information to eligible clients in support of the service referral responsibilities of the State Refugee Coordinators. Similar information for ORR's discretionary grants is currently made public.
Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by emailing
The information will be used for national resource mapping pertaining to ORR RSS funding at the local level. Improved communication and the knowledge of all local providers is important to ORR's overall oversight of the program. In addition to RSS formula funding to states and state replacement agencies who then issue sub-awards to local providers, ORR also awards discretionary grants that directly fund local refugee service providers. This report will provide ORR a complete picture of the availability all ORR resources to assist newly arrived refugees at the local level increasing our ability to identify gaps or target areas of need.
Refugee Act of 1980 [Immigration and Nationality Act, Title IV, Chapter 2 Section 412 (e)] and 45 CFR 400.28.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Oral Drug Products Administered Via Enteral Feeding Tube: In Vitro Testing and Labeling Recommendations.” This draft guidance provides recommendations for consistent in vitro testing of oral drug products to demonstrate their suitability to be administered via enteral tube. In addition, it supports the development of clear product-specific enteral tube administration instructions in labeling for administration to patients unable to ingest oral drug products.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by August 2, 2021 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or Office of Policy, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Amy Muhlberg, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg., 51, Rm. 3117, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6901; or Shanil Haugen, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg., 66, Rm. 2612, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0301.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Oral Drug Products Administered Via Enteral Feeding Tube: In Vitro Testing and Labeling Recommendations.” This draft guidance provides recommendations regarding in vitro testing of oral drug products, other than solutions, administered via enteral feeding tube (hereinafter
Enteral tubes are critical for patients who are unable to swallow oral dosage forms because of feeding disorders, severe intellectual disabilities, neurological disorders, cancers, and other medical conditions or therapies that compromise swallowing or the function of the proximal gastrointestinal system. It is critical that each drug administered via enteral tube is delivered at the correct dose in a manner that preserves the drug's expected safety and efficacy profile and does not compromise the integrity of the tube.
Some FDA-approved drug products marketed in the United States include instructions for enteral tube administration in their labeling. However, testing is not sufficiently widespread or consistent, and the content and format of labeling statements regarding administration of drug products via enteral tube vary.
The Agency recognizes the need for consistent in vitro testing to ensure safe and effective delivery of drugs that may be administered via enteral tube and to identify drugs that cannot be administered through an enteral tube without altering the safety and effectiveness profile of the drug product or compromising the integrity of the tube.
The draft guidance covers selection of appropriate enteral tubes for testing, selection of the dispersion media and preparation of the drug dispersion, and testing conditions and methods. Additional recommendations are given for modified release drug products. Completion of the recommended testing of a drug product prepared in the same manner as it will be prepared for administration to a patient in the clinical setting should allow applicants to demonstrate whether a drug product is suitable for enteral tube administration and identify drug products that are incompatible with enteral tube administration.
Finally, the draft guidance covers how to summarize information regarding administration of the drug product via enteral tube in labeling, including example labeling statements for drug products that can be safely and effectively administered via enteral tube and labeling statements for drug products that are not recommended for administration via enteral tube.
FDA requests comment from the public regarding the extent to which the recommendations in the guidance could be applicable to nonprescription products marketed under over-the-counter monographs that could be administered via enteral tube.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Oral Drug Products Administered Via Enteral Feeding Tube: In Vitro Testing and Labeling Recommendations.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
While this draft guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this draft guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively. The collections of information in 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public. Individuals who plan to participate and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when
The meeting will be open to the public via NIH Videocast
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly
For general information about this notice, contact Aaron Santa Anna, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2020.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:
1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;
2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;
3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the
a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;
b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;
c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;
d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and
e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.
This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.
This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from October 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.
Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.
Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver.
Additionally, this notice includes waivers made pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), not previously published in the
Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the fourth quarter of calendar year 2020) before the next report is published (the first quarter of calendar year 2021), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the fourth quarter in the next report.
Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.
The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:
I. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development.
II. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Housing.
III. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
The waiver is effective from December 4, 2020, through September 30, 2021. The waiver is available to all HOME participating jurisdictions.
•
If the household will continue to receive TBRA beyond the waiver period, the participating jurisdiction must determine the household's income eligibility in accordance with 24 CFR 92.203(a)(2) prior to executing a new TBRA contract. The participating jurisdiction must include tenant income certifications in each project file. This waiver is effective from the date of this memorandum and remains in effect through the end of the waiver period.
•
•
This waiver allows participating jurisdictions to pay the full cost of monthly utilities in addition to rental assistance and security deposit payments for new and existing TBRA families affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Participating jurisdictions may provide up to 100 percent subsidy for rent, security deposit payments, and utilities for tenants affected by a reduction or loss of income from the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, this waiver allows participating jurisdictions to pay past-due rent and fees, including any late fees, as defined in the tenant's lease. This waiver also permits the payment of utility costs, late fees associated with overdue utilities, as well as necessary costs to restore utility service. All costs must still comply with 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, including the requirement that HOME assistance not be used to pay costs when other sources, including federal, state, or local assistance have already been provided to pay the same costs. The waiver also eliminates the need for the participating jurisdiction to establish utility allowances for different types and sizes of units for its TBRA program, which eliminates a significant administrative burden.
As individuals experience financial hardship, the amount of assistance required to ensure they remain housed will often exceed the participating jurisdiction's payment standard. In addition, individuals may be unable to pay the participating jurisdiction's minimum required tenant contribution toward rent. Requiring participating jurisdictions to establish or revise payment standards and the minimum tenant contribution to rent policies in the current emergency would be burdensome and delay the provision of TBRA in response to the pandemic.
The participating jurisdiction may pay past-due rent and fees, including late fees, in accordance with the tenant's lease and federal requirements, due on or after January 27, 2020, the effective date of the public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the COVID-19 pandemic until the end of the extended waiver period. Participating jurisdictions should establish a timeframe for TBRA assistance during the extended waiver period based on the circumstances in their jurisdiction. In accordance with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act, Pub. L. 116-136) moratorium on fees, after the effective date of the rental assistance contract, the participating jurisdiction may not pay and an owner may not charge, any fees associated with nonpayment of rent from March 27, 2020 until after July 24, 2020. The participating jurisdiction must document the amount(s) and payment date(s) of any past-due rent and fees in the TBRA tenant file. The file should also include evidence that the fees comply with federal requirements, including the CARES Act, 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and tenant's lease. The participating jurisdiction may make utility payments, including any past-due payments, late fees and utility restoration costs due on or after January 27, 2020, directly to the tenant or utility company based on utility bills submitted for the assisted unit, either by mail or electronically. The participating jurisdiction must document the amount(s) and payment date(s) of any utility payments and fees in the TBRA tenant file.
•
•
•
•
•
The participating jurisdiction may provide additional HOME funds to recapitalize operating deficit reserves for HOME-assisted rental projects if the participating jurisdiction determines that the project is experiencing operating deficits related to the economic
Project operating expenses may be demonstrated by one of the following: Owner's most recent year-to-date financials for the project; Certified project-level accounting records covering the most recent 3 months; or Copies of project-level bank statements covering the most recent 3 months. Project operating expenses may also be adjusted due to COVID-19-related expenditures and foregone expenses due to social distancing measures and other COVID-19-related impacts. An owner may demonstrate these expenses with recent receipts, copies of work orders, revised budgets that have been certified by the project owner as true, accurate representations of current expenditures. In order to take advantage of this waiver, participating jurisdictions must amend the HOME written agreement with the project owner to include the amount of HOME funds that will be provided to an operating reserve (
The waiver is available to all HOME participating jurisdictions.
•
This waiver is necessary because source documentation may not accurately reflect the current income of existing tenants and/or social distancing measures may make submission of source documentation unduly difficult. Many families affected by actions taken to reduce the spread of COVID-19, such as business closures resulting in loss of employment or lay-offs, will not have documentation that accurately reflects current income and will not be able to qualify for HOME assistance if the requirement remains in effect. Additionally, the waiver is necessary to help participating jurisdictions comply with national, state, or local health authorities' recommendations on social distancing to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19.
•
•
•
Participating jurisdictions using this waiver authority for families assisted under TBRA are not required to inspect for compliance with HQS in accordance with 24 CFR 982.401. Participating jurisdiction shall make reasonable efforts to address any tenant-reported health and safety issues during the waiver period. At the conclusion of the extended waiver period, all housing occupied by households receiving HOME TBRA must meet the housing quality standards (HQS) at 24 CFR 982.401. However, this waiver does not apply to the requirements at 24 CFR 35.1215. Consequently, units built before 1978 must undergo visual evaluation and paint repair in accordance with 24 CFR part 35, subpart M. Participating jurisdictions using this waiver authority must establish procedures to minimize the risk that tenants are in housing that does not meet HQS.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The regulatory waiver is subject to the following conditions:
1. The waiver is limited to ten (10) transactions and expires on December 31, 2025.
2. Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County must elect to take 50 percent or more of the risk of loss on all transactions.
3. Mortgages made under this waiver may have amortization periods of up to 40 years, but with a minimum term of 17 years.
4. All other requirements of 24 CFR 266.410—Mortgage Provision remain applicable. The waiver is applicable only to loans made under Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County's Risk Sharing Agreement.
5. In accordance with 24 CFR 266.200(d), the mortgage may not exceed an amount supportable by the lower of the Section 8 or comparable unassisted rents.
6. Projects must comply with Davis-Bacon labor standards in accordance with 24 CFR 266.225.
7. Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County must comply with regulations stated in 24 CFR 266.210 for insured advances or insurance upon completion transactions.
8. The loans exceeding $50 million require a separate waiver request.
9. Occupancy is no less than 93 percent for previous 12 months of the HFA loan to be refinanced.
10. No defaults in the last 12 months of the HFA loan to be refinanced.
11. A 20-year affordable housing deed restriction placed on title that conforms to the Section 542(c) statutory definition.
12. A Property Capital Needs Assessment (PCNA) must be performed, and funds escrowed for all necessary repairs, and reserves funded for future capital needs; and
13. For projects subsidized by Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts:
i. a: Owner agrees to renew HAP contract(s) for 20-year term, (subject to appropriations and statutory authorization, etc.), and b: In accordance with regulations in 24 CFR 883.306(e), and Housing Notice 2012-14—Use of “New Regulation” Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Contracts Residual Receipts of Offset Project-Based Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments, if at any time Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County determines that a project's excess funds (surplus cash) after project operations, reserve requirements and permitted distributions are met, Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County must place the excess funds into a separate interest-bearing account. Upon renewal of a HAP Contract the excess funds can be used to reduce future HAP payments or other project operations/purposes. When the HAP Contract expires, is terminated, or any extensions are terminated, any unused funds remaining in the Residual Receipt Account at the time of the contract's termination must be returned.
•
The regulatory waiver is subject to the following conditions:
1. The waiver is limited to thirty (30) transactions and expires on October 31, 2025.
2. Illinois Housing Development Authority must elect to take 50 percent or more of the risk of loss on all transactions.
3. Mortgages made under this waiver may have amortization periods of up to 40 years, but with a minimum term of 17 years.
4. All other requirements of 24 CFR 266.410—Mortgage Provision remain applicable. The waiver is applicable only to loans made under Illinois Housing Development Authority's Risk Sharing Agreement.
5. In accordance with 24 CFR 266.200(d), the mortgage may not exceed an amount supportable by the lower of the Section 8 or comparable unassisted rents.
6. Projects must comply with Davis-Bacon labor standards in accordance with 24 CFR 266.225.
7. Illinois Housing Development Authority must comply with regulations stated in 24 CFR 266.210 for insured advances or insurance upon completion transactions.
8. The loans exceeding $50 million require a separate waiver request.
9. Occupancy is no less than 93 percent for previous 12 months of the HFA loan to be refinanced.
10. No defaults in the last 12 months of the HA loan to be refinanced.
11. A 20-year affordable housing deed restriction placed on title that conforms to the Section 542(c) statutory definition.
12. A Property Capital Needs Assessment (PCNA) must be performed, and funds escrowed for all necessary repairs, and reserves funded for future capital needs; and
13. For projects subsidized by Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts:
1. a: Owner agrees to renew HAP contract(s) for 20-year term, (subject to appropriations and statutory authorization, etc.), and b: In accordance with regulations in 24 CFR 883.306(e), and Housing Notice 2012-14—Use of “New Regulation” Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Contracts Residual Receipts of Offset Project-Based Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments, if at any time Illinois Housing Development Authority determines that a project's excess funds (surplus cash) after project operations, reserve requirements and permitted distributions are met, Illinois Housing Development Authority must place the excess funds into a separate interest-bearing account. Upon renewal of a HAP Contract the excess funds can be used to reduce future HAP payments or other project operations/purposes. When the HAP Contract expires, is terminated, or any extensions are terminated, any unused funds remaining in the Residual Receipt Account at the time of the contract's termination must be returned.
•
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability of documents; request for comment and information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received an application from California Ridge Wind Energy, LLC (applicant), for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for its California Ridge Wind Farm (project). If approved, the ITP would authorize the incidental take of four bat species. The applicant has prepared a habitat conservation plan, which is also available for review. We also announce the availability of a draft environmental assessment, which has been prepared in response to the permit application in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. We request public comment on the application and associated documents.
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before July 6, 2021.
•
•
Kraig McPeek, Field Supervisor, Illinois-Iowa Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1511 47th Ave., Moline, IL 61265; telephone: 309-757-5800, extension 202; or Andrew Horton, Regional HCP Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Interior Region 3, 5600 American Blvd., West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; telephone: 612-713-5337.
Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 for TTY assistance.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received an application from California Ridge Wind Energy, LLC (applicant), for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of animal species listed as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined under the ESA as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” listed animal species, “or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1538). However, under section 10(a) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered and threatened species, respectively, are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32.
The applicant requests a 20-year ITP to take the federally endangered Indiana bat (
The issuance of an ITP is a Federal action that triggers the need for compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Service will evaluate the permit application and the comments received to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. We will also conduct an
The Service invites comments and suggestions from all interested parties during a 30-day public comment period (see
1. The environmental effects that implementation of any alternative could have on the human environment;
2. Whether or not the significance of the impact on various aspects of the human environment has been adequately analyzed; and
3. Any threats to the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat that may influence their populations over the life of the ITP that are not addressed in the proposed HCP; and
4. Any other information pertinent to evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the human environment.
You may submit comments by one of the methods shown under
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of availability.
This notice advises the public that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), as the lead Federal agency, with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (Moapa Band) as cooperating agencies, intends to file a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) with the EPA for the proposed Southern Bighorn Solar Projects (SBSPs or Project). The FEIS evaluates photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generation and storage projects on the Moapa River Indian Reservation (Reservation) and collector lines along with the use of existing access roads and an existing generation interconnection (gen-tie) line located on the Reservation, Reservation lands managed by BLM, and BLM lands. This notice also announces that the FEIS is now available for public review.
To be fully considered, written comments on the FEIS must arrive no later than 30 days after EPA publishes its Notice of Availability in the
The FEIS is available at the following website:
Mr. Chip Lewis, BIA Western Regional Office, Branch of Environmental Quality Services at (602) 379-6750 or Mr. Garry Cantley at (602) 379-6750.
The proposed Federal action, taken under 25 U.S.C. 415, is the BIA's approval of two solar energy ground leases and associated agreements entered into by the Moapa Band with 300MS 8me LLC and 425LM 8me LLC (Applicants). The agreements provide for construction, operation and maintenance (O&M), and eventual decommissioning of the PV electricity generation and battery storage facilities located entirely on the Reservation and specifically on lands held in trust for the Moapa Band, in Clark County Nevada.
The PV electricity generation and battery storage facilities would be located on up to 3,600 acres of tribal trust land (2,600 acres for SBSP I and 1,000 acres for SBSP II) and would have a combined capacity of up to 400 megawatts alternating current (MWac)—300 MWac for SBSP I, and 100 MWac for SBSP II. The two solar Projects include the solar fields, access roads, collector lines, and connection with an existing transmission gen-tie line.
Construction of the 300MWac project is expected to take approximately 14-16 months, and construction of the up to 100MWac project is expected to take approximately 8-10 months. The two projects may be constructed simultaneously or sequentially. The electricity generation and storage facilities are expected to be operated for up to 50 years under the terms of the leases, with time for construction and decommissioning. Major onsite facilities include multiple blocks of solar PV panels mounted on fixed tilt or tracking systems, pad mounted inverters and transformers, collector lines, up to 1,000 MW-hours of battery storage, access roads, and O&M facilities. Water will be needed during construction for dust control; a minimal amount will be needed during operations for administrative and sanitary use and for panel washing. The water supply required for the Projects would be leased from the Moapa Band. Access to the SBSPs will be provided via North Las Vegas Boulevard from the I-15/US 93 interchange.
The purposes of the proposed Project are, among other things, to: (1) Provide a long-term, diverse, and viable economic revenue base and job opportunities for the Moapa Band; (2) assist Nevada to meet their State renewable energy needs; and (3) allow the Moapa Band, in partnership with the Applicant, to optimize the use of the lease site while maximizing the
The BIA and BLM will use the EIS to make decisions on the land lease and right-of-way applications under their respective jurisdiction; the EPA may use the document to make decisions under its authorities; the Band may use the FEIS to make decisions under its Environmental Policy Ordinance; and the USFWS may use the FEIS to support its decision under the Endangered Species Act.
To obtain an electronic copy of the FEIS, please provide your name and address in writing or by voicemail to Mr. Chip Lewis or Mr. Garry Cantley. Their contact information is listed in the
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 8) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on settlement.
Robert Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on February 25, 2021, based on a complaint filed by Wilson Electronics LLC of St. George, Utah (“Wilson”). 86 FR 11555-56 (February 25, 2021). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain cellular signal boosters, repeaters, bi-directional amplifiers, and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,221,967; 7,409,186; 7,486,929; 7,729,669; 7,783,318; 8,583,033; 8,583,034 (“the '034 patent); 8,639,180 (“the '180 patent); 8,755,399; 8,849,187; 8,874,029 (“the '029 patent); and 8,874,030 (“the '030 patent).
On May 12, 2021, Wilson and SureCall jointly moved to terminate the investigation based on settlement. No responses to the motion were received.
On May 13, 2021, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting the motion and terminating the investigation based on settlement. The ID finds that the motion complies with Commission Rule 210.21(b) and that “there is no evidence showing that terminating this investigation on the basis of settlement would adversely affect the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers.” Order No. 8, at 2-3. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The investigation is hereby terminated in its entirety.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on May 27, 2021.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on June 1, 2020 (85 FR 33195) and determined on September 4, 2020 that it would conduct expedited reviews (86 FR 26545, May 14, 2021).
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on May 28, 2021. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5200 (May 2021), entitled
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 6) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting complainants' unopposed motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation in the above-captioned investigation to correct the identification of a respondent.
Richard P. Hadorn, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3179. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On April 13, 2021, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Canon Inc. of Tokyo, Japan; Canon U.S.A., Inc. of Melville, New York; and Canon Virginia, Inc. of Newport News, Virginia (collectively, “Canon”). 86 FR 19287-88 (Apr. 13, 2021). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain toner supply containers and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of thirteen patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,209,667; 10,289,060; 10,289,061; 10,295,957; 10,488,814; 10,496,032; 10,496,033; 10,514,654; 10,520,881; 10,520,882; 8,565,649 (“the '649 patent”); 9,354,551 (“the '551 patent”); and 9,753,402 (“the '402 patent”).
On April 27, 2021, Canon filed a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to change the identification of respondent Do It Wiser from “Do It Wiser, LLC d/b/a Image Toner” to “Do It Wiser, Inc. d/b/a Image Toner” and to make related changes in paragraph 31 of the complaint. The motion states that (i) OUII does not oppose the motion and (ii) Do It Wiser's counsel in a parallel district court lawsuit informed Canon that Do It Wiser “will not be participating in this investigation and does not oppose this motion.” Mot. at 1. No responses to the motion were filed.
On May 17, 2021, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion. The ID finds that, in accordance with Commission Rule 210.14(b) (19 CFR 210.14(b)), “Canon has shown good cause to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to correct the identification of the respondent identified in the original complaint as
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The complaint and notice of investigation are amended to change the identification of respondent Do It Wiser from “Do It Wiser, LLC d/b/a Image Toner” to “Do It Wiser, Inc. d/b/a Image Toner” and to make related changes in paragraph 31 of the complaint.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on May 27, 2021.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 18) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) terminating the investigation in its entirety based on settlement.
Benjamin S. Richards, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5453. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on February 12, 2021 based on an amended complaint filed by complainant Tela Innovations, Inc. of Los Gatos, CA (“Tela”). 86 FR 9369 (Feb. 12, 2021). The complaint, as amended, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain integrated circuits and products containing the same by reason of infringement of claims 1-11, 14-20, 25, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,186,523.
On May 11, 2021, Tela moved, without opposition, to terminate this investigation in its entirety based on settlement pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(b). 19 CFR 210.21(b). On May 13, 2021, the ALJ issued Order No. 18, terminating the investigation in its entirety based on settlement. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
The investigation is hereby terminated in its entirety.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on May 27, 2021.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to grant a joint motion to terminate the above-captioned investigation based on a settlement agreement.
Ronald A. Traud, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3427. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On November 4, 2019, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by LG Chem, Ltd. of Seoul, Republic of Korea; LG Chem Michigan Inc. of Holland, Michigan; and Toray Industries, Inc. of Tokyo, Japan. 84 FR 59415 (Nov. 4, 2019). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, due to the importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale in the United States after importation of certain lithium-ion battery cells, battery modules, battery packs, components thereof, and products containing the same that
On March 31, 2021, the administrative law judge issued a final initial determination, which found no violation of section 337 by the respondents.
On May 25, 2021, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21, paragraphs (a) and (b) (19 CFR 210.21(a) and (b)), the parties filed a Joint Motion to Terminate the Investigation on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement (“the Motion”). The parties also filed confidential and public versions of the settlement agreement.
The Commission has determined that the Motion complies with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(b)(1)) and that there are no extraordinary circumstances that would prevent the requested termination. The Commission also finds that granting the Motion would not be contrary to the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2) (19 CFR 210.50(b)(2)). Accordingly, the Commission grants the Motion. The investigation is hereby terminated in its entirety.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on May 27, 2021.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314, or send email to
Copies of the submission may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556.
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
ERCs conduct world-class research with an engineered systems perspective that integrates materials, devices, processes, components, control algorithms and/or other enabling elements to perform a well-defined function. These systems provide a unique academic research and education experience that involves integrative complexity and technological realization. The complexity of the systems perspective includes the factors associated with its use in industry, society/environment, or the human body.
ERCs enable and foster excellent education, integrate research and education, speed knowledge/technology transfer through partnerships between academe and industry, and prepare a more competitive future workforce. ERCs capitalize on diversity through participation in center activities and demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups underrepresented in science and engineering.
Centers are required to submit annual reports on progress and plans, which will be used as a basis for performance review and determining the level of continued funding. To support this review and the management of a Center, ERCs also are required to submit management and performance indicators annually to NSF via a data collection website that is managed by a technical assistance contractor. These indicators are both quantitative and descriptive and may include, for example, the characteristics of center personnel and students; sources of cash and in-kind support; expenditures by operational component; characteristics of industrial and/or other sector participation; research activities; education activities; knowledge transfer activities; patents, licenses; publications; degrees granted to students involved in Center activities; descriptions of significant advances and other outcomes of the ERC effort. Such reporting requirements will be included in the cooperative agreement which is binding between the academic institution and the NSF.
Each Center's annual report will address the following categories of activities: (1) Vision and impact, (2) strategic plan, (3) research program, (4) innovation ecosystem and industrial collaboration, (5) education, (6) infrastructure (leadership, management,
For each of the categories the report will describe overall objectives for the year, progress toward center goals, problems the Center has encountered in making progress towards goals and how they were overcome, plans for the future and anticipated research and other barriers to overcome in the following year, and specific outputs and outcomes.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 14, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 26, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 19, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the American Century Sustainable Growth ETF under NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E. 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 has adopted NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E for the purpose of permitting the listing and trading, or trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”), of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares, which are securities issued by an actively managed open-end investment management company.
While funds issuing Active Proxy Portfolio Shares will be actively managed and, to that extent, will be similar to Managed Fund Shares, Active Proxy Portfolio Shares differ from Managed Fund Shares in the following important respects. First, in contrast to Managed Fund Shares, which are actively-managed funds listed and traded under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E
The Commission has previously approved listing and trading on the Exchange of series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares under NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E.
Commentary .04 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E provides that, if the investment adviser to the Investment Company issuing Active Proxy Portfolio Shares is registered as a broker-dealer or is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser will erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and personnel of the broker-dealer or broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such Investment Company's Actual Portfolio and/or Proxy Portfolio. Any person related to the investment adviser or Investment Company who makes decisions pertaining to the Investment Company's Actual Portfolio and/or Proxy Portfolio or has access to non-public information regarding the Investment Company's Actual Portfolio and/or Proxy Portfolio or changes thereto must be subject to procedures reasonably designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Actual Portfolio and/or Proxy Portfolio or changes thereto. Commentary .04 is similar to Commentary .03(a)(i) and (iii) to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3); however, Commentary .04, in connection with the establishment of a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer, reflects the applicable open-end fund's portfolio, not an underlying benchmark index, as is the case with index-based funds.
In addition, Commentary .05 to Rule 8.601-E provides that any person or entity, including a custodian, Reporting Authority, distributor, or administrator, who has access to non-public information regarding the Investment Company's Actual Portfolio or the Proxy Portfolio or changes thereto, must be subject to procedures reasonably designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the applicable Investment Company Actual Portfolio or the Proxy Portfolio or changes thereto. Moreover, if any such person or entity is registered as a broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer, such person or entity will erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the person or entity and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such Investment Company Actual Portfolio or Proxy Portfolio.
The Adviser is not registered as a broker-dealer but is affiliated with a broker-dealer. The Adviser has implemented and will maintain a “fire wall” with respect to such broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition of and/or changes to the Fund's Actual Portfolio and/or Proxy Portfolio. In the event (a) the Adviser becomes registered as a broker-dealer or newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser is or becomes a registered broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement and maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel or its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's Actual Portfolio and/or Proxy Portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Fund's Actual Portfolio and/or Proxy Portfolio or changes thereto. Any person related to the Adviser or the Fund who makes decisions pertaining to the Fund's Actual Portfolio or Proxy Portfolio or has access to non-public information regarding the Fund's Actual Portfolio and/or the Proxy Portfolio or changes thereto is subject to procedures reasonably designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Fund's Actual Portfolio and/or the Proxy Portfolio or changes thereto.
In addition, any person or entity, including any service provider for the Fund, who has access to non-public information regarding the Fund's Actual Portfolio or the Proxy Portfolio or changes thereto, will be subject to procedures reasonably designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Fund's Actual Portfolio and/or the Proxy Portfolio or changes thereto. Moreover, if any such person or entity is registered as a broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer, such person or entity has erected and will maintain a “fire wall” between the person or entity and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's Actual Portfolio and/or Proxy Portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, each “Business Day”
The Proxy Portfolio will be designed to closely track the daily performance of the Actual Portfolio and to reflect the economic exposures and risk characteristics of the Fund's actual holdings on each trading day. According to the Registration Statement, this would be achieved by performing an analysis of the Fund's Actual Portfolio (“Factor Model”). The Factor Model is comprised of three sets of factors or analytical metrics: Market-based factors, fundamental factors, and industry/sector factors. The Fund will have a universe of securities (the “Model Universe”) that will be used to generate its Proxy Portfolio. The Model Universe will be comprised solely of securities that the Fund can purchase and will be a financial index or stated portfolio of securities from which Fund investments will be selected. The results of the Factor Model analysis of the Fund's Actual Portfolio are then applied to the Fund's Model Universe. The daily rebalanced Proxy Portfolio is then generated as a result of this Model Universe analysis with the Proxy Portfolio being a small sub-set of the Model Universe. The Factor Model is applied to both the Actual Portfolio and the Model Universe to construct the Fund's Proxy Portfolio that performs in a manner substantially identical to the performance of its Actual Portfolio.
The identity and quantity of Proxy Portfolio component investments and the overlap between the holdings of the prior Business Day's Proxy Portfolio compared to the Actual Portfolio (“Proxy Overlap”) will be publicly available on the Fund's website before the commencement of trading in Shares on each Business Day. The Proxy Portfolio published on the Fund's website each Business Day will include the following information for each portfolio holding in the Proxy Portfolio: (1) Ticker symbol; (2) CUSIP or other identifier; (3) description of holding; (4) quantity of each security or other asset held; and (5) percentage weight of the holding in the Proxy Portfolio. The Fund's website will note that the Proxy Overlap is calculated based on the Proxy Portfolio and Actual Portfolio holdings as of the prior Business Day. The Proxy Overlap will be calculated by taking the lesser weight of each asset held in common between the Actual Portfolio and the Proxy Portfolio and adding the totals.
The Proxy Portfolio aims to allow market participants to assess the intraday value and associated risk of the Fund's Actual Portfolio. The Proxy Portfolio will only include securities that are allowed to be held in the Actual Portfolio.
The Fund's holdings will conform to the permissible investments as set forth in the Application and Exemptive Order, and the holdings will be consistent with all requirements in the Application and Exemptive Order.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund's investment objective is to seek capital appreciation. The Fund will generally invest in exchange-traded common stocks of large capitalization companies. Under normal circumstances, the Fund will invest at least 80% of the Fund's net assets in sustainable securities, defined as securities to which the Adviser's proprietary model assigns an environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) score that is in the top three quartiles of the ESG scores the model assigns to all of the securities in the Fund's benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index.
The Shares of the Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under Rule 8.601-E. The Fund's holdings will be limited to and consistent with permissible holdings as described in the Application and Exemptive Order and all requirements in the Application and Exemptive Order.
The Fund's investments, including derivatives, will be consistent with their investment objectives and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage). That is, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
According to the Registration Statement, the Trust will offer, issue and sell Shares of the Fund to investors only in specified minimum size “Creation Units” through the Distributor on a continuous basis at the NAV per Share next determined after an order in proper form is received. The NAV of the Fund is expected to be determined as of 4:00 p.m. E.T. on each Business Day. The Trust will sell and redeem Creation Units of the Fund only on a Business Day. A Creation Unit will generally consist of at least 10,000 Shares.
According to the Registration Statement, Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis of a designated portfolio of securities (including any portion of such securities for which cash may be substituted) and the “Cash Component,” which is an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the “Deposit Amount,” which is an amount equal to the market value of the Deposit Securities, and serves to compensate for any differences between the NAV per Creation Unit and the Deposit Amount. Together, the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to creation requests received in proper form. The Fund Deposit represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of the Fund. The names and quantities of the instruments that constitute the Fund Deposit will be the same as the Fund's Proxy Portfolio, except to the extent purchases and redemptions are made entirely or in part on a cash basis.
Each Business Day, before the open of trading on the Exchange (9:30 a.m. E.T.), the Fund will cause to be published through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security and the amount of the Cash Component (if any) to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information as of the end of the previous Business Day for the Fund).
All orders to purchase and redeem Creation Units must be placed with the Distributor by or through an authorized participant, which has a written agreement with the Distributor that allows the authorized participant to place orders for the purchase and redemption of Creation Units (“Authorized Participant”). Only an Authorized Participant may create or redeem Creation Units directly with the Fund.
Validly submitted orders to purchase or redeem Creation Units on each Business Day will be accepted until the end of the Core Trading Session (the “Closing Time”), generally 4:00 p.m. E.T., on the Business Day that the order is placed (the “Transmittal Date”). All Creation Unit orders must be received by the Distributor no later than two hours prior to the Closing Time (normally 2 p.m. E.T.) in order to receive the NAV determined on the Transmittal Date. When the Exchange closes earlier than normal, the Fund may require orders for Creation Units to be placed earlier in the Business Day.
The Fund's website (
The Proxy Portfolio holdings (including the identity and quantity of investments in the Proxy Portfolio) will
Typical mutual fund-style annual, semi-annual and quarterly disclosures contained in the Fund's Commission filings will be provided on the Fund's website on a current basis.
Investors can also obtain the Fund's prospectus, SAI, shareholder reports, Form N-CSR, Form N-PORT and Form N-CEN. Investors may access complete portfolio schedules for the Fund on Form N-CSR and Form N-PORT. The prospectus, SAI and shareholder reports will be available free upon request from the Fund, and those documents and the Form N-CSR, Form N-PORT and Form N-CEN may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's website at
Information regarding the market price of Shares and trading volume in Shares, will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. The previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers.
Quotation and last sale information for the Shares and U.S. exchange-traded instruments (excluding futures contracts) will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line, from the exchanges on which such securities trade, or through major market data vendors or subscription services. Intraday price information for all exchange-traded instruments, which include all eligible instruments and futures contracts but not cash and cash equivalents, will be available from the exchanges on which they trade, or through major market data vendors or subscription services. Intraday price information for cash equivalents is available through major market data vendors, subscription services and/or pricing services.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund.
Specifically, Rule 8.601-E(d)(2)(D) provides that the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt trading in a series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares inadvisable. These may include: (a) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the financial instruments composing the Proxy Portfolio and/or Actual Portfolio; or (b) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present.
In addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV, Proxy Portfolio or Actual Portfolio with respect to a series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, the Exchange shall halt trading in such series until such time as the NAV, Proxy Portfolio or Actual Portfolio is available to all market participants at the same time.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace in all trading sessions in accordance with NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E(a). As provided in NYSE Arca Rule 7.6-E, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate trading in the Shares during all trading sessions.
A minimum of 100,000 Shares for the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange. In addition, pursuant to Rule 8.601-E(d)(1)(B), the Exchange, prior to commencement of trading in the Shares, will obtain a representation from the Trust that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV, Proxy Portfolio and the Actual Portfolio for the Fund will be made available to all market participants at the same time.
With respect to Active Proxy Portfolio Shares, all of the Exchange member obligations relating to product description and prospectus delivery requirements will continue to apply in accordance with Exchange rules and federal securities laws, and the Exchange and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) will continue to monitor Exchange members for compliance with such requirements.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by the Exchange, as well as cross market surveillances administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or the Exchange or both will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and underlying exchange-traded instruments with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or the Exchange or both may obtain trading information regarding trading such securities and exchange-traded instruments from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in such securities and exchange-traded instruments from
The Advisor will make available daily to FINRA and the Exchange the Actual Portfolio of the Fund, upon request, in order to facilitate the performance of the surveillances referred to above.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Commentary .03 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E provides that the Exchange will implement and maintain written surveillance procedures for Active Proxy Portfolio Shares. As part of these surveillance procedures, the Investment Company's investment adviser will upon request by the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, make available to the Exchange or FINRA the daily Actual Portfolio holdings of each series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares. The Exchange believes that the ability to access the information on an as needed basis will provide it with sufficient information to perform the necessary regulatory functions associated with listing and trading series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares on the Exchange, including the ability to monitor compliance with the initial and continued listing requirements as well as the ability to surveil for manipulation of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares.
The Exchange will utilize its existing procedures to monitor the Fund's compliance with the requirements of Rule 8.601-E. For example, the Exchange will continue to use intraday alerts that will notify Exchange personnel of trading activity throughout the day that may indicate that unusual conditions or circumstances are present that could be detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. The Exchange will require from the Trust, upon initial listing and periodically thereafter, a representation that it is in compliance with Rule 8.601-E. The Exchange notes that Commentary .01 to Rule 8.601-E requires the issuer of shares to notify the Exchange of any failure to comply with the continued listing requirements of Rule 8.601-E. In addition, the Exchange will require the Trust to represent that it will notify the Exchange of any failure to comply with the terms of applicable exemptive and no-action relief. As part of its surveillance procedures, the Exchange will rely on the foregoing procedures to become aware of any non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 8.601-E.
With respect to the Fund, all statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio or reference asset, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this rule filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the Trust, prior to commencement of trading in the Shares of the Fund, that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(m).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
With respect to the proposed listing and trading of Shares of the Fund, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E. One hundred percent of the value of the Fund's Actual Portfolio (except for cash and cash equivalents) at the time of purchase will be listed on U.S. or foreign securities exchanges (or, in the limited case of futures contracts, U.S. futures exchanges). The listing and trading of such U.S. securities is subject to rules of the exchanges on which they are listed and traded, as approved by the Commission.
The Fund's holdings will conform to the permissible investments as set forth in the Application and Exemptive Order and the holdings will be consistent with all requirements in the Application and Exemptive Order.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and underlying exchange-traded instruments with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading such securities and exchange-traded instruments from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded instruments from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Any foreign common stocks held by the Fund will be traded on an exchange that is a member of the ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
The daily dissemination of the identity and quantity of Proxy Portfolio component investments, together with the right of Authorized Participants to create and redeem each day at the NAV, will be sufficient for market participants to value and trade Shares in a manner that will not lead to significant deviations between the Bid/Ask Price and NAV of the Shares.
The Fund's investments, including derivatives, will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage). That is, the Fund's investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
With respect to the Fund, the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the Trust, prior to commencement of trading in the Shares, that the NAV per Share of the Fund will be calculated daily and that the NAV, Proxy Portfolio and Actual Portfolio for the Fund will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Investors can also obtain the Fund's SAI, shareholder reports, and
Commentary .03 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E provides that the Exchange will implement and maintain written surveillance procedures for Active Proxy Portfolio Shares. As part of these surveillance procedures, the Investment Company's investment adviser will, upon request by the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, make available to the Exchange or FINRA the daily portfolio holdings of each series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares. The Exchange believes that the ability to access the information on an as needed basis will provide it with sufficient information to perform the necessary regulatory functions associated with listing and trading series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares on the Exchange, including the ability to monitor compliance with the initial and continued listing requirements as well as the ability to surveil for manipulation of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares. With respect to the Fund, the Adviser will make available daily to FINRA and the Exchange the portfolio holdings of the Fund upon request in order to facilitate the performance of the surveillances referred to above.
The Exchange will utilize its existing procedures to monitor compliance with the requirements of Rule 8.601-E. For example, the Exchange will continue to use intraday alerts that will notify Exchange personnel of trading activity throughout the day that may indicate that unusual conditions or circumstances are present that could be detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. The Exchange will require from the Trust, upon initial listing and periodically thereafter, a representation that it is in compliance with Rule 8.601-E. The Exchange notes that Commentary .01 to Rule 8.601-E requires the issuer of shares to notify the Exchange of any failure to comply with the continued listing requirements of Rule 8.601-E. In addition, the Exchange will require the Trust to represent that it will notify the Exchange of any failure to comply with the terms of applicable exemptive and no-action relief. The Exchange will rely on the foregoing procedures to become aware of any non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 8.601-E.
In addition, with respect to the Fund, a large amount of information will be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency.
Quotation and last sale information for the Shares and U.S. exchange-traded instruments (excluding futures contracts) will be available via the CTA high-speed line, from the exchanges on which such securities trade, or through major market data vendors or subscription services. Intraday price information for all exchange-traded instruments, which include all eligible instruments and futures contracts but not cash and cash equivalents, will be available from the exchanges on which they trade, or through major market data vendors or subscription services. Intraday price information for cash equivalents is available through major market data vendors, subscription services and/or pricing services.
The website for the Fund will include a form of the prospectus that may be downloaded, and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information, updated on a daily basis. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Rule 7.12-E have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. Trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to the Proxy Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares. The Proxy Portfolio holdings for the Fund (including the identity and quantity of investments in the Proxy Portfolio) will be publicly available on the Fund's website before the commencement of trading in Shares on each Business Day. The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under Rule 8.601-E.
The Fund's holdings will conform to the permissible investments as set forth in the Application and Exemptive Order and the holdings will be consistent with all requirements in the Application and Exemptive Order.
The components of the Fund's Actual Portfolio will (a) be listed on an exchange and the primary trading session of such exchange will trade synchronously with the Exchange's Core Trading Session, as defined in Rule 7.34-E(a); (b) with respect to exchange-traded futures, be listed on a U.S. futures exchange; or (c) consist of cash and cash equivalents.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the Trust, prior to commencement of trading in the Shares of the Fund, that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(m).
As noted above, with respect to the Fund, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, with respect to the Fund, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Proxy Portfolio and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would permit listing and trading of another type of actively-managed ETF that has characteristics different from existing actively-managed and index ETFs and would introduce additional competition among various ETF products to the benefit of investors.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
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.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 16, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
LTSE proposes a rule change to temporarily reduce by half the schedule of Initial Listing Fees for issuers' Primary Equity Securities on LTSE in light of the competitive market for listings and the ongoing disruptions caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change to amend Rule 14.601 to temporarily reduce by half the schedule of Initial Listing Fees for issuers' Primary Equity Securities on LTSE in light of the competitive market for listings and the ongoing disruptions caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic.
The Initial Listing Fee in LTSE Rule 14.601(a)(1) is determined based on the market capitalization of the Company when it lists on the Exchange.
The amount of such fee is set forth in the fee table LTSE Rule 14.601(a)(3). The Initial Listing Fee is prorated based on the number of trading days in the year remaining at the time of a Company's initial listing.
Beginning January 1, 2022, the Initial Listing Fees and Annual Listing Fees would revert to the levels as originally adopted in Rule 14.601.
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to temporarily reduce the listing fees amount by half for the remainder of 2021. The market for listings is highly competitive and the Exchange believes that a temporary
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the temporary reduction for the remainder of 2021 of the Initial Listing Fee is reasonable in view of the highly competitive market for listings and the disruptions faced by Companies as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic. The benefits to a Company, its shareholders and stakeholders from pursuing long-term value creation were discussed extensively in the background and rationale for LTSE's Long-Term Policies.
Additionally, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market for the listing of Primary Equity Securities. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. A temporary reduction in price contributes to the competitive marketplace. The Exchange believes therefore that the proposed rule change supports an open market and the national market system, and is consistent with the public interest.
LTSE does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change would establish a temporary reduction in the schedule of Initial Listing Fees.
The market for listing services is highly competitive. Each listing exchange has a different fee schedule that applies to issuers seeking to list securities on its exchange. Issuers have the option to list their securities on these alternative venues based on the fees charged and the value provided by each listing. Because issuers have a choice to list their securities on a different national securities exchange, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend Rule 3.54 and Rule 3.10. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 3.54 in connection with a Designated Primary Market-Maker (“DPM”) Designee.
Pursuant to Rule 3.54(a), a DPM may act as a DPM solely through its DPM Designees. A “DPM Designee” is an individual who is approved by the Exchange to represent a DPM in its capacity as a DPM. An individual must satisfy various requirements, which are included in Rule 3.54(b), in order to be a DPM Designee of a DPM. Specifically, current Rule 3.54(b)(2) provides that, as one of the requirements, the individual must be a Responsible Person of the DPM. Additionally, pursuant to current Rule 3.9(a), each Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) organization that is the holder of a Trading Permit that provides electronic access to the Exchange must designate at least one individual as the Responsible Person for that TPH organization. The Exchange notes that Off-Floor DPMs, which is a DPM authorized to function remotely away from the Exchange's trading floor,
Rule 3.10(a) requires, among other things, any individual designated to act as a Responsible Person or nominee desiring to act in one or more of the trading functions authorized by the Rules of the Exchange (“Rules”, and individually, “Rule”) to submit an application to the TPH Department in a form and manner prescribed by the Exchange. Additionally, Rule 3.10(d) provides that the TPH Department shall investigate, among other applicants, each applicant applying to be a Responsible Person or nominee (with the exception of any associated person applicant that is a current Trading Permit Holder, Responsible Person or nominee, any applicant that was a Trading Permit Holder, Responsible Person or nominee within 9 months prior to the date of receipt of that applicant's application by the TPH Department, and any Trading Permit Holder, Responsible Person, nominee or associated person applicant that was
The Exchange previously restructured its Trading Permits and Rules regarding Trading Permits in connection with a 2019 technology migration.
Additionally, as described above, a Responsible Person must be a U.S.-based officer, director or management-level employee of the TPH organization, who is responsible for the direct supervision and control of Associated Persons of that TPH organization. Unlike a nominee, a Responsible Person is not required to have authorized trading functions on behalf of the DPM. A Responsible Person at the executive or managerial level might not be involved in the day-to-day trading activities of the DPM. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to update Rule 3.54(b)(1) so that an Off-Floor DPM may also designate individuals as DPM Designees that are involved in the performance of trading functions on behalf of the DPM, much like that of a nominee for an On-Floor DPM, as proposed. Specifically, the proposed rule change provides that, if at least one individual satisfies the Responsible Person requirement, then an Off-Floor DPM may designate additional individuals as DPM Designees that are not required to be Responsible Persons but must be involved in the day-to-day trading of the DPM's appointed classes and otherwise satisfy the DPM Designee requirements (in subparagraphs (b)(2) through (5)). As a result, an Off-Floor DPM will still be required to have a Responsible Person DPM Designee but will also be able to identify an additional DPM Designee that is more intimately involved in the actual daily trading in the DPM's appointed classes, which is more aligned with the role of a nominee of an On-Floor DPM.
Lastly, the proposed rule change amends Rules 3.10(a) and (d) to include the term DPM Designees among the list of individuals required to apply to the TPH Department of the Exchange and among the list of individual applicants that the TPH Department must investigate pursuant to the application process. The proposed rule change ensures that the Off-Floor DPM Designees that are not necessarily required to be Responsible Persons, as proposed, must still go through the Exchange's application process.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system because it removes an unnecessary (and inadvertent) regulatory burden for On-Floor DPMs that are required, by nature of their on-floor Market-Maker position, to have a nominee pursuant to Rule 3.9 but do not hold Trading Permits that provide electronic access to the Exchange and are therefore not automatically required to designate a Responsible Person pursuant to Rule 3.9. As such, the proposed rule change allows an On-Floor DPM to designate a nominee as a DPM Designee, for which each On-Floor DPM must already have
The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system because it allows for an Off-Floor DPM to designate as a DPM Designee an individual who is more intimately involved in the daily trading functions and performance of the DPM in its appointed classes, while also still having a DPM Designee that is a Responsible Person. Although a Responsible Person is qualified to represent the DPM in all Exchange matters, given the more managerial and supervisory level requirements to be a Responsible Person, such an individual might not operate day-to-day trading functions in a DPM's appointed classes. As such, an Off-Floor DPM will be able to have a DPM Designee that is more materially involved in the daily trading operation of the DPM and have authorized trading functions and perform those functions on behalf of the DPM. The Exchange believes this will provide additional assurance that a DPM may meets its quoting requirements and other Market-Maker obligations in its appointed classes and better align the level of operational responsibility required for an Off-Floor DPM Designee with that of an On-Floor DPM Designee, as proposed. For this reason, too, the Exchange also believes that proposed rule change furthers the objectives of Section 6(c)(3) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change requiring a DPM Designee to be a nominee applies equally to all On-Floor DPMs equally, and the proposed rule change allowing an Off-Floor DPM to have additional DPM Designees required to be involved in the day-to-day operation of the DPM in its appointed classes applies equally to all Off-Floor DPMs.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change only affects DPMs of the Exchange and the requirements and process regarding their designees. The proposed rule change is not intended to address any competitive issues, but rather to more appropriately align the requirements for individuals acting on behalf of DPMs with respect to their activity on the Exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(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 will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 7620A to eliminate the per-transaction fee for late reports and corrective transactions that is currently imposed on non-Retail Participants that use the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility Carteret (the “FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret”) and the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility Chicago (the “FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago”) (collectively, the “FINRA/Nasdaq TRF”) and to increase the Participation Fee to account for the overhead costs associated with processing late and corrective transaction reports.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The FINRA/Nasdaq TRF is a facility of FINRA that is operated by Nasdaq, Inc. (“Nasdaq”). In connection with the establishment of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, FINRA and Nasdaq entered into a limited liability company agreement (the “LLC Agreement”). Under the LLC Agreement, FINRA, the “SRO Member,” has sole regulatory responsibility for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. Nasdaq, the “Business Member,” is primarily responsible for the management of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF's business affairs, including establishing pricing for use of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, to the extent those affairs are not inconsistent with the regulatory and oversight functions of FINRA. Additionally, the Business Member is obligated to pay the cost of regulation and is entitled to the profits and losses, if any, derived from the operation of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF.
Pursuant to FINRA Rule 7620A, Participants
Currently, non-Retail Participants are charged a per-transaction fee for late and corrective transaction reports. Specifically, the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF imposes a “Late Report—T+N” fee of $0.288 per trade on the Executing Party
Historically, particularly when trade reporting was more manual in nature and trade volume was lower, a per-transaction fee was appropriate because the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF's efforts to address late and erroneous reports were discrete and the costs of those efforts could be more readily allocated to individual Participants. Today, the costs to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF of processing errors and late trade reports no longer correlate directly to the number or size of late trade reports or corrective transactions. In recent years, trade reporting activity on the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF has grown substantially, and often if trade reporting errors occur, they will be large in number (
Rather than continue to assess a fee that does not correlate to the actual costs of processing a Participant's late reports or error corrections, or attempt the complex and burdensome task of allocating those actual costs to a Participant based upon its specific late report or correction scenario, Nasdaq, as the Business Member, proposes instead to treat these costs as general overhead that all non-Retail Participants will bear as part of the monthly Participation Fee.
Currently, the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF charges its Participants (other than Retail Participants) a $350 per month Participation Fee, which exists to “defray certain shared and common costs associated with the operation of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, including overhead costs and the costs of developing, maintaining, and upgrading shared technology.”
Nasdaq, as the Business Member, believes that treating the costs of processing Participants' late or corrective transaction reports as overhead and incorporating them in the Participation Fee is appropriate because such costs are necessary for the proper administration of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. The FINRA/Nasdaq TRF must devote staff and other resources to processing late and corrective transaction reports regardless of the total number or frequency of such reports. Nasdaq estimates that in 2020, the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF incurred approximately $740,000 to provide operational, business, and development support for late and corrective activity. This support comprised the equivalent of three full-time employees, customer technical guidance, FIX testing support, upload testing and processing support, system and trade processing review, and trade review. In addition, a majority of FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Participants submitted late or corrective transaction reports last year. Nasdaq notes that more than 60 percent of Participants incurred fees for late or corrective transaction reports at least once in 2020. Specifically, in 2020, 371 firms submitted a total of 1,248,568 cancellations and 298 firms submitted a total of 976,228 late reports to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF.
To account for the costs of addressing late and erroneous trade reports, Nasdaq, as the Business Member, proposes to increase the Participation Fee for all Participants (other than Retail Participants, which are not subject to the fee under current rules) from $350 to $450 per month. The proposed $100 increase is based on $740,000 operating costs for three full-time equivalent staff and other resources divided across the 620 non-Retail Participants on the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF.
FINRA and Nasdaq, as the Business Member, do not believe that the proposed rule change will diminish incentives for Participants to report their trades correctly and in a timely manner, as required by FINRA rules. The FINRA/Nasdaq TRF late and corrective transaction report fees are primarily intended to address the administrative burden of processing corrections and late trade reports. While these fees may generally encourage the correct reporting of transaction data, they are not intended to serve a disciplinary function, even for Participants that report trades erroneously or late in large numbers. Separate and apart from the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF late and corrective transaction report fees, FINRA rules require Participants to report their trades in a timely manner, and firms have an ongoing obligation to report trade information accurately and completely.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The operative date will be June 1, 2021.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,
Nasdaq, as the Business Member, believes the proposals are reasonable to: (i) Eliminate the per-transaction fee for late reports and corrective transactions; and (ii) instead allocate the costs of late and corrective activity as overhead to all non-Retail Participants by increasing the monthly Participation Fee.
As discussed above, the costs that the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF incurs to process corrective and late reports no longer correlate directly to the number or size of such reports that a Participant submits. Similarly, these costs have become difficult to correlate to a particular Participant given the idiosyncratic nature of many late reports and corrective transactions and the varying levels of operational support that are required to address them. Finally, as noted above, a majority of non-Retail Participants submitted late or corrective transaction reports at least once in 2020. Accordingly, Nasdaq believes that it would be reasonable and equitable to require all non-Retail Participants to bear these costs as part of the overhead costs of operating the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF.
Nasdaq, as the Business Member, believes that the proposed rule change will allocate fees fairly among FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Participants.
As a threshold matter, Nasdaq believes that the existing formula is no longer appropriate because it may result in a Participant paying a fee that does not correlate to the actual costs of processing the Participant's late or corrective transaction reports. Currently, a Participant may incur a large fee to correct a coding or other system error that impacts a large number of trades, even though the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF is able to facilitate correction of the error on an automated basis with minimal operational support. Meanwhile, another Participant may incur a small fee to correct an error in a single trade even though the error may be complex and require significant time and support to fix.
Nasdaq intends for the proposal to allocate the costs of processing late and corrective reports in a manner that is more equitable to Participants than the existing formula. As discussed above, Nasdaq believes that these costs are appropriately classified as overhead in that: (i) They involve staff and other resources that the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF dedicates for use in processing late and corrective reports regardless of the frequency or size of such reports; (2) these resources and costs are necessary for the proper operation of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF; and (3) the majority of Participants make use of such resources. Additionally, these costs are difficult to correlate accurately to particular Participants due to the idiosyncratic nature of many late or corrective transaction reports and the varying levels of operational support that they require. The proposed rule change would avoid this difficulty by requiring all non-Retail Participants to bear these costs equally.
Going forward, non-Retail Participants with large numbers of late or corrective transaction reports will benefit from the proposed rule change because the additional amount that they pay in the Participation Fee will be less than the per-transaction late or corrective fee they would pay under the current formula. By contrast, non-Retail Participants with no or a small number of late or corrective transaction reports might incur a larger fee than they do now, through the increase in the Participation Fee. Nasdaq, as the Business Member, believes that these potentially disparate effects are not unfairly discriminatory because any Participant has the potential to submit late or corrective transaction reports in the future, even if they have not done so in the past, and thus all have the potential to benefit from the proposed rule change. For example, 13% of firms with late or corrective activity in 2020 did not have any late or corrective activity in 2019. Conversely, 15% of firms with late or corrective activity in 2019 did not have any late or corrective activity in 2020.
Moreover, the proposed $100 monthly increase in the Participation Fee is small in an absolute sense, as well as small relative to the overall fees that Participants typically incur on the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. As such, any adverse impact of the proposed rule change on Participants that currently pay little or no fees for late or corrective activity is likely to be nominal. Nasdaq notes that the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF has not raised the Participation Fee since the fee was first established in 2018, despite the fact that the costs of operating the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF generally grow one to two percent per year (in keeping with cost of living adjustments), and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF continues to invest in developing, maintaining, and upgrading its technology.
Nasdaq does not believe that it is inequitable or unfairly discriminatory to charge the same fee to each non-Retail Participant to cover the costs of addressing late or corrective activity, even though some Participants may need to address such activity more frequently or at higher volumes than others. The existing Participation Fee already allocates other overhead costs of operating the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF in the same manner, even though some Participants may be more heavy users of the TRF, and thus may account for more electric power, computer equipment, and other overhead costs than other Participants.
Finally, Nasdaq believes that it is not inequitable or unfairly discriminatory to exempt Retail Participants from the increased Participation Fee. Under current rules, Retail Participants are exempt from paying the Participation Fee as well as the per-transaction fee for late and corrective transaction reports.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Nasdaq, as the Business Member, does not believe that the proposed rule change will place any category of Participants at a competitive disadvantage. The proposed increase in the Participation Fee will apply equally to all Participants (other than to Retail Participants, which as noted above, are exempt from paying the Participation Fee under current rules). The proposed rule change will ensure non-Retail Participants share responsibility for the costs of correcting trade reports or reporting late trades as they already do for other types of overhead costs. Additionally, Participants are free to report their trades to another FINRA trade reporting facility (“TRF”) to the extent they believe that the assessed fees are not attractive. Price competition between the TRFs is substantial, with trade reporting activity and market share moving between them in reaction to fee changes.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change will not impose a burden on competition among the TRFs because use of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF is completely voluntary and subject to competition.
Moreover, Nasdaq, as the Business Member, believes that the proposed rule change is necessary for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF to retain trade reporting business and to compete for new business since customers evaluate product and pricing when they evaluate where to submit their trade reports. Nasdaq notes that the competing TRF does not charge a separate fee to report late trades or to correct previously submitted trade reports, and Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change will reduce any price differential between the competing TRFs in this regard. Accordingly, Nasdaq believes that the risk that this proposed rule change will impose an undue burden on intermarket competition is extremely limited.
If market participants determine that the changes proposed herein are inadequate or unattractive, it is likely that the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change will not impair the ability of the other TRF to maintain its competitive standing.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain closed-end management investment companies and business development companies (“BDCs”) to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment funds.
Franklin Templeton Co-Investing Interval Fund (“Existing Regulated Fund”); Franklin Blackhorse, L.P., Franklin Talos, L.P., Franklin Ventures Investments, L.P.—FVP Series 1, Franklin Ventures Investments, L.P.—FVP Series 2, and Franklin Ventures Investments, L.P.—FVP Series 3 (together, “Existing Affiliated Funds”); and Franklin Advisers, Inc. (“Existing Adviser”).
Applicants filed the application on October 8, 2020, and amended it on April 14, 2021.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
The Commission:
Jill Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6819 or Lisa Reid Ragen, Branch Chief at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The applicants request an order of the Commission under sections 17(d) and 57(i) and rule 17d-1 thereunder (the “Order”) to permit, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the application (the “Conditions”), a Regulated Fund
2. The Existing Regulated Fund is a Delaware statutory trust that will be registered under the Act as a non-diversified closed-end management investment company and intends to operate as an interval fund under rule 23c-3 of the Act. Investment decisions for the Existing Regulated Fund will be made by the Adviser in accordance with the policies approved by the Board,
3. Each of the Existing Affiliated Funds is a Delaware limited partnership. Each of the Existing Affiliated Funds would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) of the Act, except for Franklin Talos, LP., which would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(7) of the Act.
4. The Existing Adviser is a California corporation that is registered with the Commission as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. The Existing Adviser serves as the investment adviser to each Existing Affiliated Fund and will serve as the primary investment adviser to the Existing Regulated Fund pursuant to an investment advisory agreement.
5. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time, form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.
6. Applicants represent that the Advisers have established rigorous processes for allocating initial investment opportunities, opportunities for subsequent investments in an issuer and dispositions of securities holdings reasonably designed to treat all clients fairly and equitably. Further, applicants represent that these processes will be extended and modified in a manner reasonably designed to ensure that the additional transactions permitted under the Order will both (i) be fair and equitable to the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds and (ii) comply with the Conditions.
7. Opportunities for Potential Co-Investment Transactions may arise when investment advisory personnel of an Adviser becomes aware of investment opportunities that may be appropriate for a Regulated Fund and one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds. If the requested Order is granted, the Advisers will establish, maintain and implement policies and procedures reasonably
8. Applicants state that, for each Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund whose Adviser recommends participating in a Potential Co-Investment Transaction, the Adviser's investment committee will approve an investment amount. Prior to the External Submission (as defined below), each proposed order amount may be reviewed and adjusted, in accordance with the applicable Advisers' written allocation policies and procedures, by the applicable Adviser's investment committee.
9. If the aggregate Internal Orders for a Potential Co-Investment Transaction do not exceed the size of the investment opportunity immediately prior to the submission of the orders to the underwriter, broker, dealer or issuer, as applicable (the “External Submission”), then each Internal Order will be fulfilled as placed. If, on the other hand, the aggregate Internal Orders for a Potential Co-Investment Transaction exceed the size of the investment opportunity immediately prior to the External Submission, then the allocation of the opportunity will be made pro rata on the basis of the size of the Internal Orders.
“Eligible Directors” means, with respect to a Regulated Fund and a Potential Co-Investment Transaction, the members of the Regulated Fund's Board eligible to vote on that Potential Co-Investment Transaction under section 57(o) of the Act (treating any registered investment company or series thereof as a BDC for this purpose).
10. Applicants state that from time to time the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds may have opportunities to make Follow-On Investments
11. Applicants propose that Follow-On Investments would be divided into two categories depending on whether the prior investment was a Co-Investment Transaction or a Pre-Boarding Investment.
12. A Regulated Fund would be permitted to invest in Standard Review Follow-Ons either with the approval of the Required Majority under Condition 8(c) or without Board approval under
“JT No-Action Letters” means SMC Capital, Inc., SEC No-Action Letter (pub. avail. Sept. 5, 1995) and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, SEC No-Action Letter (pub. avail. June 7, 2000).
13. Applicants propose that Dispositions
14. A Regulated Fund may participate in a Standard Review Disposition either with the approval of the Required Majority under Condition 6(d) or without Board approval under Condition 6(c) if (i) the Disposition is a Pro Rata Disposition
15. Applicants represent that under the terms and Conditions of the application, all Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds participating in a Co-Investment Transaction will invest at the same time, for the same price and with the same terms, conditions, class, registration rights and any other rights, so that none of them receives terms more favorable than any other. However, the settlement date for an Affiliated Fund in a Co-Investment Transaction may occur up to ten business days after the settlement date for the Regulated Fund, and vice versa. Nevertheless, in all cases, (i) the date on which the commitment of the Affiliated Funds and Regulated Funds is made will be the same even where the settlement date is not and (ii) the earliest settlement date and the latest settlement date of any Affiliated Fund or Regulated Fund participating in the transaction will occur within ten business days of each other.
16. Under Condition 15, if an Adviser, its principals, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser or its principals, and the Affiliated Funds (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting shares of a Regulated Fund (the “Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as required under Condition 15; provided however, that Condition 15 will not apply to a Regulated Fund during any time which the Holders in the aggregate own 100% of the Shares of such Regulated Fund.
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit participation by a registered investment company and an affiliated person in any “joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan,” as defined in the rule, without prior approval by the Commission by order upon application. Section 17(d) of the Act and Rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.
2. Similarly, with regard to BDCs, section 57(a)(4) of the Act generally prohibits certain persons specified in section 57(b) from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a company controlled by the BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by the Commission. Section 57(i) of the Act provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under section 57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a)(4). Because the Commission has not adopted any rules under section 57(a)(4), rule 17d-1 also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs.
3. Co-Investment Transactions are prohibited by either or both of rule 17d-1 and section 57(a)(4) without a prior exemptive order of the Commission to the extent that the Affiliated Funds and the Regulated Funds participating in
4. In passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
5. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief, in many circumstances the Regulated Funds would be limited in their ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment opportunities. Applicants state that, as required by rule 17d-1(b), the Conditions ensure that the terms on which Co-Investment Transactions may be made will be consistent with the participation of the Regulated Funds being on a basis that it is neither different from nor less advantageous than other participants, thus protecting the equity holders of any participant from being disadvantaged. Applicants further state that the Conditions ensure that all Co-Investment Transactions are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Funds and their shareholders and do not involve overreaching by any person concerned, including the Advisers. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the Co-Investment Transactions in accordance with the Conditions will be consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and would be done in a manner that is not different from, or less advantageous than, that of other participants.
Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following Conditions:
1.
(a) The Advisers will establish, maintain and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that each Adviser is promptly notified of all Potential Co-Investment Transactions that fall within the then-current Objectives and Strategies and Board-Established Criteria of any Regulated Fund the Adviser manages.
(b) When an Adviser to a Regulated Fund is notified of a Potential Co-Investment Transaction under Condition 1(a), the Adviser will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for the Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
2.
(a) If an Adviser deems a Regulated Fund's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Fund, it will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the Regulated Fund.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the Advisers to be invested in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction by the participating Regulated Funds and any participating Affiliated Funds, collectively, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on the size of the Internal Orders, as described in section III.A.1.b. of the application. Each Adviser to a participating Regulated Fund will promptly notify and provide the Eligible Directors with information concerning the Affiliated Funds' and Regulated Funds' order sizes to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the applicable Regulated Fund's investments for compliance with these Conditions.
(c) After making the determinations required in Condition 1(b) above, each Adviser to a participating Regulated Fund will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the amount proposed to be invested by each participating Regulated Fund and each participating Affiliated Fund) to the Eligible Directors of its participating Regulated Fund(s) for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will enter into a Co-Investment Transaction with one or more other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's participation in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
(i) The terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Fund and its equity holders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Fund or its equity holders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) the transaction is consistent with:
(A) The interests of the Regulated Fund's equity holders; and
(B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by any other Regulated Fund(s) or Affiliated Fund(s) would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis different from, or less advantageous than, that of any other Regulated Fund(s) or Affiliated Fund(s) participating in the transaction; provided that the Required Majority shall not be prohibited from reaching the conclusions required by this Condition 2(c)(iii) if:
(A) The settlement date for another Regulated Fund or an Affiliated Fund in a Co-Investment Transaction is later than the settlement date for the Regulated Fund by no more than ten business days or earlier than the settlement date for the Regulated Fund by no more than ten business days, in either case, so long as: (x) The date on which the commitment of the Affiliated Funds and Regulated Funds is made is the same; and (y) the earliest settlement date and the latest settlement date of any Affiliated Fund or Regulated Fund participating in the transaction will occur within ten business days of each other; or
(B) any other Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund itself, gains the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have a board observer or any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company so long as: (x) The Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any; (y) the Adviser agrees to, and does, provide periodic reports to the Regulated Fund's Board with respect to the actions of such director or the information received by such board observer or obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company; and (z) any fees or other compensation that any other Regulated Fund or
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not involve compensation, remuneration or a direct or indirect
3.
4.
“Close Affiliate” means the Advisers, the Regulated Funds, the Affiliated Funds and any other person described in section 57(b) (after giving effect to rule 57b-1) in respect of any Regulated Fund (treating any registered investment company or series thereof as a BDC for this purpose) except for limited partners included solely by reason of the reference in section 57(b) to section 2(a)(3)(D).
“Remote Affiliate” means any person described in section 57(e) in respect of any Regulated Fund (treating any registered investment company or series thereof as a BDC for this purpose) and any limited partner holding 5% or more of the relevant limited partner interests that would be a Close Affiliate but for the exclusion in that definition.
5.
6.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to such Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund will notify each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer of the proposed Disposition at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to participation by such Regulated Fund in the Disposition.
(b)
(c)
(i) (A) The participation of each Regulated Fund and Affiliated Fund in such Disposition is proportionate to its then-current holding of the security (or securities) of the issuer that is (or are) the subject of the Disposition;
(ii) each security is a Tradable Security and (A) the Disposition is not to the issuer or any affiliated person of the issuer; and (B) the security is sold for cash in a transaction in which the only term negotiated by or on behalf of the participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds is price.
(d)
7.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to such Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund will notify each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer of the proposed Disposition at the earliest practical time;
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to participation by such Regulated Fund in the Disposition; and
(iii) the Advisers will provide to the Board of each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer all information relating to the existing investments in the issuer of the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds, including the terms of such investments and how they were made, that is necessary for the Required Majority to make the findings required by this Condition.
(b)
(i) The Disposition complies with Condition 2(c)(i), (ii), (iii)(A), and (iv); and
(ii) the making and holding of the Pre-Boarding Investments were not prohibited by section 57 or rule 17d-1, as applicable, and records the basis for the finding in the Board minutes.
(c)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
8.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to each such Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund will notify each Regulated Fund that holds securities of the portfolio company of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed investment, by such Regulated Fund.
(b)
(i) (A) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer or the security at issue, as appropriate,
(ii) it is a Non-Negotiated Follow-On Investment.
(c)
(d)
(i) The amount of the opportunity proposed to be made available to any Regulated Fund is not based on the Regulated Funds' and the Affiliated Funds' outstanding investments in the issuer or the security at issue, as appropriate, immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Advisers to be invested in the Follow-On Investment by the participating Regulated Funds and any participating Affiliated Funds, collectively, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity,
(e)
9.
(a)
(i) The Adviser to each such Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund will notify each Regulated Fund that holds securities of the portfolio company of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time;
(ii) the Adviser to each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer will formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed investment, by such Regulated Fund; and
(iii) the Advisers will provide to the Board of each Regulated Fund that holds an investment in the issuer all information relating to the existing investments in the issuer of the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds,
(b)
(c)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(d)
(i) The amount of the opportunity proposed to be made available to any Regulated Fund is not based on the Regulated Funds' and the Affiliated Funds' outstanding investments in the issuer or the security at issue, as appropriate, immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Advisers to be invested in the Follow-On Investment by the participating Regulated Funds and any participating Affiliated Funds, collectively, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, then the Follow-On Investment opportunity will be allocated among them pro rata based on the size of the Internal Orders, as described in section III.A.1.b. of the application.
(e)
10.
(a) Each Adviser to a Regulated Fund will present to the Board of each Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, and at such other times as the Board may request, (i) a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds or any of the Affiliated Funds during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies and Board-Established Criteria that were not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why such investment opportunities were not made available to the Regulated Fund; (ii) a record of all Follow-On Investments in and Dispositions of investments in any issuer in which the Regulated Fund holds any investments by any Affiliated Fund or other Regulated Fund during the prior quarter; and (iii) all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the Independent Directors, may determine whether all Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with the Conditions.
(b) All information presented to the Regulated Fund's Board pursuant to this Condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
(c) Each Regulated Fund's chief compliance officer, as defined in rule 38a-1(a)(4), will prepare an annual report for its Board each year that evaluates (and documents the basis of that evaluation) the Regulated Fund's compliance with the terms and Conditions of the application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance.
(d) The Independent Directors will consider at least annually whether continued participation in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
This advance notice consists of modifications to the FICC Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (“Rules”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the Advance Notice and discussed any comments it received on the Advance Notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A and B below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FICC reviewed the proposed rule change with Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members in order to benefit from their expertise. Written comments relating to this proposed rule change have not been received from the Sponsoring Members, Sponsored Members or any other person. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Rules to (i) add a new service offering, the Sponsored GC Service, (ii) add language to Rule 3A to allow FICC to recognize, for CCLF calculation purposes, any offsetting settlement obligations as between a Sponsoring Member's netting account and its Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account to ensure that a Sponsoring Member's CCLF obligation is calculated in a manner that more closely aligns with the liquidity risk associated with Sponsored Member Trades, (iii) remove the requirement from Section 2 of Rule 3A that a Sponsoring Member provide a quarterly representation to FICC that
Under Rule 3A (Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members), certain Netting Members are permitted to sponsor, as Sponsoring Members, “qualified institutional buyers” as defined by Rule 144A, and certain legal entities that, although not organized as entities specifically listed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of Rule 144A, satisfy the financial requirements necessary to be “qualified institutional buyers” as specified in that paragraph into FICC/GSD membership.
The current Sponsoring Member/Sponsored Member Service (the “Service”), which has been in existence since 2005, has seen a steady increase in the number of Sponsoring Members, in the number of Sponsored Members and in the volume of Sponsored Member Trades over the past three years.
In addition, the Service allows Sponsoring Members to take lesser capital charges for Repo Transactions with Sponsored Members than would be required were such transactions uncleared.
By alleviating balance sheet and capital constraints on Sponsoring Members, the Service allows eligible institutional firms to engage in greater activity than may otherwise be feasible, which in turn increases the liquidity available in the repo market. Such greater liquidity provides stability in the market and additionally increases potential returns for investors in both cash provider institutions and collateral provider institutions. For example, the increased liquidity the Service provides allows investors in institutional firms that act as cash provider Sponsored Members to invest more of their cash than may otherwise be possible outside of clearing, which in turn allows such investors the ability to earn a greater return as a result of their institutional firms' participation in the Service. Likewise, for investors in institutional firms that act as collateral provider Sponsored Members, the increased liquidity ensures more consistent financing opportunities than may otherwise be available outside of clearing. Such consistent access to financing may increase the amount of cash the collateral provider institutional firms have to deploy into other investment strategies, which in turn allows their investors the opportunity to earn a greater return as a result of the institutional firms' participation in the Service.
FICC believes that enabling more repo transactions to clear through FICC mitigates the risk of a large-scale exit by institutional firms from the U.S. financial market in a stress scenario.
In recent years, FICC has taken steps to enable Sponsoring Members to submit term (rather than overnight) repo transactions for clearing. Specifically, in 2019, the Commission approved rule changes that added a new close-out mechanism and adjusted the calculation of certain funds-only settlement amounts for Sponsored Member Trades that include haircuts.
FICC also believes that enabling more term (rather than overnight) repo activity in the Service can serve to help reduce repo rate volatility in the market and, in turn, help to avoid events like those that occurred in September 2019, when a temporary reduction in overnight reverse repo activity by money market funds, including through the Service, contributed in part to the repo rate volatility on those days.
Although the aforementioned rule changes have resulted in some Sponsoring Members transacting term Repo Transactions with certain of their
In light of this feedback and in order to support more repo activity (particularly term repo activity) to be able to be transacted in central clearing, FICC is proposing to add the Sponsored GC Service, which would allow Sponsoring Members and their Sponsored Member clients to execute Repo Transactions with each other on a general collateral basis in the same asset classes as are currently eligible for Netting Members to transact in through FICC/GSD's existing GCF Repo® Service. Such Repo Transactions would be allowed to settle on the tri-party repo platform of a Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank (as defined below) in a similar manner to the way Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members settle tri-party repo transactions with each other outside of central clearing, thereby making it more operationally efficient for them to transact Repo Transactions (particularly term Repo Transactions) with each other through FICC.
As described above, a Sponsoring Member would be permitted to submit to FICC for Novation the End Leg of Repo Transactions with its Sponsored Member client that would be executed in one of a series of new Generic CUSIP Numbers that would be registered with CUSIP Global Services by FICC in connection with the proposed Sponsored GC Service (each a “Sponsored GC Trade”). The proposed schedule of securities that would be eligible under each of the new Generic CUSIP Numbers that would be established for the proposed Sponsored GC Service would be identical to the current schedule of securities that are eligible under each of the existing Generic CUSIP Numbers that is currently established for the GCF Repo Service, including (i) U.S. Treasury Securities maturing in ten (10) years or less, (ii) U.S. Treasury Securities maturing in thirty (30) years or less, (iii) Non-Mortgage-Backed U.S. Agency Securities, (iv) Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) Fixed Rate Mortgage-Backed Securities, (v) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Adjustable Rate Mortgage-Backed Securities, (vi) Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”) Fixed Rate Mortgage-Backed Securities, (vii) Ginnie Mae Adjustable Rate Mortgage-Backed Securities, (viii) U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (“TIPS”) and (ix) U.S. Treasury Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities (“STRIPS”).
Consistent with FICC's processing of Repo Transactions in its existing GCF Repo Service, each Sponsored GC Trade would be required to be fully collateralized with securities eligible under the applicable Generic CUSIP Number and/or cash. However, consistent with the existing Service, Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members would be permitted to transfer a haircut on a Sponsored GC Trade so that the value of the securities at the Start Leg (the “GC Start Leg Market Value”) exceeds 100% of the initial principal balance of the Sponsored GC Trade.
Consistent with the manner in which tri-party repo transactions are settled today outside of central clearing, the Start Leg of a Sponsored GC Trade would settle on a trade for trade basis on a Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank's tri-party repo platform between the Sponsoring Member and the Sponsored Member. Novation to FICC of the End Leg of a Sponsored GC Trade would occur at the time when all of the following requirements have been satisfied on a given Business Day: (i) The trade data on the Sponsored GC Trade has been submitted to FICC by the Sponsoring Member pursuant to Rule 6A by the deadline set forth in the proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes, (ii) the data on the Sponsored GC Trade has been compared in the Comparison System pursuant to Rule 6A, (iii) the Start Leg of the Sponsored GC Trade has fully settled at the Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank by the deadline set forth in the proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes, (iv) the Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank has, pursuant to communication links, formats, timeframes, and deadlines established by FICC for such purpose, provided to FICC a report containing such data as FICC may require from time to time, including information regarding the specific Eligible Securities that were delivered in the settlement of the Start Leg of the Sponsored GC Trade (the “Purchased GC Repo Securities”), and (v) FICC determines that the data contained in such report matches the data on the Sponsored GC Trade submitted by the Sponsoring Member to the Comparison System.
Accrued repo interest on Sponsored GC Trades would be paid and collected by FICC on a daily basis. If on any Business Day, the market value of the Purchased GC Repo Securities is less than the GC Start Leg Market Value, then the Sponsoring Member or Sponsored Member that transferred the securities in the Start Leg (the “GC Funds Borrower”) would be required deliver to FICC (and FICC would be required to deliver to the GC Funds Borrower's pre-Novation counterparty) additional Eligible Securities that are represented by the same Generic CUSIP Number as the Purchased GC Repo Securities (“GC Comparable Securities”) and/or cash, such that the market value of the Purchased GC Repo Securities (inclusive of the newly transferred securities and cash) is at least equal to the GC Start Leg Market Value. If on any Business Day, the market value of the Purchased GC Repo Securities is greater than the GC Start Leg Market Value, the Sponsoring Member or Sponsored Member that received the securities in
Such additional securities and/or cash must be delivered within the timeframe set forth in the proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes. Any securities or cash transferred by the GC Funds Borrower pursuant to these requirements would constitute Purchased GC Repo Securities, and any Purchased GC Repo Securities transferred by the GC Funds Lender pursuant to these requirements would, following such transfer, no longer constitute Purchased GC Repo Securities.
In addition, consistent with the processing of Repo Transactions in FICC's existing GCF Repo Service, a GC Funds Borrower would be permitted to substitute for Purchased GC Repo Securities, GC Comparable Securities and/or cash within the timeframe set forth in the proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes.
In order to facilitate settlement, FICC would direct each GC Funds Borrower and GC Funds Lender to make any payment or delivery due to FICC in respect of a Sponsored GC Trade (except for certain funds-only settlement obligations, as discussed below) directly to the relevant Member's pre-Novation counterparty. As a result, each transfer of Purchased GC Repo Securities and daily repo interest would be made directly between the relevant GC Funds Borrower and GC Funds Lender through the tri-party repo platform of a Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank.
To that end, each GC Funds Borrower and GC Funds Lender would agree that any such direct payment or delivery discharges FICC's obligation to make the same payment or delivery. Otherwise, all legal rights and obligations as between FICC and Sponsoring Members, and as between FICC and Sponsored Members, would be the same with respect to Sponsored GC Trades as with respect to Sponsored Member Trades in the existing Service, which is governed by Rule 3A.
Sponsored GC Trades would be risk managed in a similar fashion to Sponsored Member Trades in the existing Service.
To mitigate market risk, the VaR Charge would be calculated for each Sponsored Member client individually based on such Sponsored Member client's activity in the existing Service, as well as such Sponsored Member client's activity in the proposed Sponsored GC Service. The VaR Charge for the Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account would continue to be the sum of the individual VaR Charges for each Sponsored Member client,
In addition, FICC would risk manage the mark-to-market risk associated with unaccrued repo interest on a Sponsored GC Trade in the same way it manages such risk in the GCF Repo Service, namely through a proposed new GC Interest Rate Mark component of funds-only settlement. This proposed new mark would be calculated in the same manner as the GCF Interest Rate Mark is for GCF Repo Transactions.
For liquidity risk management, Sponsored Member Trades between a Sponsoring Member and its Sponsored Member in the existing Service do not independently create liquidity risk for FICC. This is because FICC is not required to complete settlement of such Sponsored Member Trades in the event that either the Sponsoring Member or Sponsored Member defaults. In the event that the Sponsoring Member defaults, Section 14(c) of Rule 3A permits FICC to close out (rather than settle) the Sponsored Member Trades of the defaulter's Sponsored Members.
As a result, to the extent a Sponsoring Member either (1) runs a matched book of Sponsored Members (
Sponsored GC Trades would impact FICC's liquidity risk similarly to Sponsored Member Trades in the existing Service in this regard, in that liquidity risk to FICC would only be increased to the extent the Sponsoring Member enters into a Repo Transaction with a third-party Netting Member (which it may choose to do in order to offset the Sponsored GC Trade that it executed with its Sponsored Member). Accordingly, FICC proposes to manage the liquidity risk associated with Sponsored GC Trades in the same manner that it manages such risk for other Sponsored Member Trades. As discussed below in Item II(B)(iii), FICC is proposing to add language to Rule 3A to revise the manner in which it calculates a Sponsoring Member's Individual Total Amount for purposes of its CCLF obligation, with respect to all Sponsored Member Trades, including Sponsored GC Trades, in order to reflect the fact that Sponsored Member Trades do not create liquidity risk.
To effectuate the proposed changes described above, FICC would revise Rule 1 to add the following new defined terms: (1) GC Collateral Return Entitlement, (2) GC Collateral Return Obligation, (3) GC Comparable Securities, (4) GC Daily Repo Interest, (5) GC Funds Borrower, (6) GC Funds Lender, (7) GC Interest Rate Mark, (8) GC Repo Security, (9) GC Start Leg Market Value, (10) Purchased GC Repo Securities, (11) Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank, and (12) Sponsored GC Trade.
GC Collateral Return Entitlement would mean the entitlement of a Sponsoring Member or Sponsored Member, as applicable, to receive the Purchased GC Repo Securities (as defined below) in exchange for cash at the End Leg of a Sponsored GC Trade.
GC Collateral Return Obligation would mean the obligation of a Sponsoring Member or Sponsored Member, as applicable, to deliver the Purchased GC Repo Securities in exchange for cash at the End Leg of a Sponsored GC Trade.
GC Comparable Securities would mean, in relation to a Sponsored GC Trade, any GC Repo Securities that are represented by the same Generic CUSIP Number as the GC Repo Securities that were transferred in the Start Leg of the Sponsored GC Trade, as set forth in the proposed new Schedule of GC Comparable Securities.
GC Daily Repo Interest would mean the daily interest amount that is payable under a Sponsored GC Trade.
GC Funds Borrower would mean a Sponsoring Member or Sponsored Member, as applicable, that has a GC Collateral Return Entitlement and associated cash payment obligation.
GC Funds Lender would mean a Sponsoring Member or Sponsored Member, as applicable, that has a GC Collateral Return Obligation and associated cash payment entitlement.
GC Interest Rate Mark would mean, on a particular Business Day as regards any Sponsored GC Trade where the End Leg is not scheduled to settle on that day, the product of the principal value of the Sponsored GC Trade on the Scheduled Settlement Date for its End Leg multiplied by a factor equal to the absolute difference between the System Repo Rate established by FICC for such Sponsored GC Trade and its Contract Repo Rate, and then multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of calendar days from the current day until the Scheduled Settlement Date for the End Leg of the Sponsored GC Trade and the denominator of which is 360. If the Sponsored GC Trade's Contract Repo Rate is greater than its System Repo Rate, then the GC Interest Rate Mark would be a positive value for the GC Funds Lender, and a negative value for the GC Funds Borrower. If the Sponsored GC Trade's Contract Repo Rate is less than its System Repo Rate, then the GC Interest Rate Mark would be a positive value for the GC Funds Borrower, and a negative value for the GC Funds Lender.
GC Repo Security would mean an Eligible Security that is only eligible for submission to FICC in connection with the comparison and Novation of Sponsored GC Trades.
GC Start Leg Market Value would mean, in relation to a Sponsored GC Trade, the market value of the GC Repo Securities transferred in the Start Leg of the Sponsored GC Trade, measured as of the date of the settlement of the Start Leg of such Sponsored GC Trade.
Purchased GC Repo Securities would mean the GC Repo Securities transferred by the Sponsoring Member or Sponsored Member, as applicable, in settlement of the Start Leg of a Sponsored GC Trade, plus all cash and other GC Repo Securities transferred by such Sponsoring Member or Sponsored Member pursuant to proposed Sections 8(b)(ii) and 8(b)(v) of Rule 3A, less any GC Repo Securities or cash received by the Sponsoring Member or Sponsored Member pursuant to proposed Sections 8(b)(iii) and 8(b)(v) of Rule 3A.
Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank would mean a Clearing Agent Bank that has agreed to provide FICC, upon request, under mutually agreeable terms, with clearing services for Sponsored GC Trades.
Sponsored GC Trade would mean, in connection with the Sponsored GC Service, a Sponsored Member Trade that is a Repo Transaction between a Sponsored Member and its Sponsoring Member involving securities represented by a Generic CUSIP Number the data on which are submitted to FICC by the Sponsoring Member pursuant to the provisions of Rule 6A, for Novation to FICC pursuant to proposed Section 7(b)(ii) of Rule 3A.
FICC also proposes to revise the following defined terms in Rule 1: (1) Eligible Security, (2) End Leg, (3) General Collateral Repo Transaction, (4) Generic CUSIP Number, (5) Initial Haircut, (4) Interest Adjustment Payment, (5) Sponsored Member Trade, (6) Start Leg, (7) Forward Mark Adjustment Payment, and (8) Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account, each as described in greater detail below.
FICC proposes to revise the definition of Eligible Security to state that a GC Repo Security would be deemed to be an Eligible Security only in connection with a Sponsored GC Trade.
FICC also proposes to revise the definition of End Leg to include a definition applicable to Sponsored GC Trades. As regards a Sponsored GC Trade, End Leg would mean the concluding settlement aspects of the transaction, involving the retransfer of the Purchased GC Repo Securities by the GC Funds Lender and the taking back of such Purchased GC Repo Securities by the GC Funds Borrower. Because FICC is revising the definition of End Leg to add a definition applicable to Sponsored GC Trades, FICC would also revise the first sentence of the current definition to state that it does not apply to Sponsored GC Trades by adding the phrase “or a Sponsored GC Trade” after “as regards a Repo Transaction other than a GCF Repo Transaction (or CCIT Transaction as applicable).”
FICC proposes to revise the definition of General Collateral Repo Transaction to state that General Collateral Repo Transaction would mean a Repo Transaction, other than a GCF Repo Transaction or Sponsored GC Trade
FICC also proposes to revise the definition of Generic CUSIP Number to state that FICC would use separate Generic CUSIP Numbers for General Collateral Repo Transactions, GCF Repo Transactions and Sponsored GC Trades.
FICC also proposes to revise the definition of Initial Haircut to include a definition applicable to Sponsored GC Trades. As regards any Sponsored GC Trade, Initial Haircut would mean any difference between (x) the Contract Value of the Start Leg of the Sponsored GC Trade and (y) the GC Start Leg Market Value. Because FICC is revising the definition of Initial Haircut to include a definition applicable to Sponsored GC Trades, FICC would revise proposed section (i) in the definition to state that proposed section (i) would apply to any Sponsored Member Trade that is not a Sponsored GC Trade by adding the phrase “that is not a Sponsored GC Trade” after “as regards any Sponsored Member Trade.”
FICC also proposes to revise the definition Interest Adjustment Payment to include a definition applicable to Sponsored GC Trades. As regards a Sponsored GC Trade, Interest Adjustment Payment would mean the product of the GC Interest Rate Mark multiplied by the applicable Overnight Investment Rate and then multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of calendar days between the previous Business Day and the current Business Day and the denominator of which is 360.
FICC proposes to revise the definition of Sponsored Member Trade to include Sponsored GC Trades.
FICC also proposes to revise the definition of Start Leg to include a definition applicable to Sponsored GC Trades. As regards a Sponsored GC Trade, Start Leg would mean the initial settlement aspects of the Transaction, involving the transfer of GC Repo Securities by the Sponsoring Member or Sponsored Member, as applicable, that is the GC Funds Borrower and the taking in of such GC Repo Securities by the Sponsoring Member or Sponsored Member, as applicable, that is the GC Funds Lender. Because FICC is proposing to revise the definition of Start Leg to add a definition applicable to Sponsored GC Trades, FICC would revise that the first sentence of the current definition to state that it does not apply to Sponsored GC Trades by adding the phrase “or a Sponsored GC Trade” after “as regards a Repo Transaction other than a GCF Repo Transaction.”
FICC also proposes to revise the definition of Forward Mark Adjustment Payment in Rule 1 to state that it would refer to the GC Interest Rate Mark with respect to Sponsored GC Trades.
FICC also proposes to make conforming changes to the definition of Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account to state that it may contain all types of Sponsored Member Trades. The current definition of Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account states that each Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account may contain activity within the meaning of clause (a) of the Sponsored Member Trade definition or activity within the meaning of clause (b) of such definition.
In addition, FICC proposes to revise the definition of Sponsored GC Service in Rule 1 and to revise Section VII (Sponsoring Members) of the Fee Structure, as described below.
FICC proposes to revise the definition of Sponsored GC Service in Rule 1 to state that it would mean the service offered by FICC to clear tri-party repurchase agreement transactions between Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members, as described in Rule 3A. Currently, the definition of Sponsored GC Service states that it means a service to be offered by FICC, which has not yet been proposed for and would be subject to regulatory approval, to clear tri-party repurchase agreement transactions between the Sponsoring Members and Sponsored Members, as shall be described in Rule 3A. FICC also proposes to remove the footnote in the definition of Sponsored GC Service, which states that the Sponsored GC Service shall be the subject of a subsequent rule filing with the Commission and that the definition of Sponsored GC Service shall be revised upon approval of the subsequent rule filing, and at that time the footnote shall sunset.
FICC also proposes to revise Section VII (Sponsoring Members) of the Fee Structure to remove language that states that to the extent FICC, in consultation with its Board of Directors, does not implement the Sponsored GC Service, all previously collected Sponsored GC Pre-Payment Assessments shall be returned to the contributing Sponsoring Members in full. FICC also proposes to remove the footnote in this section which states that the Sponsored GC Service shall be the subject of a subsequent rule filing with the Commission and that Section VII of the Fee Structure shall be revised to remove the referenced sentence upon approval of the subsequent rule filing, and at that time the footnote shall sunset.
In addition, FICC proposes to revise Rule 3A, Section 5 (Sponsored Member Trades) to state that this section does not apply to Sponsored GC Trades. Section 5 concerns the types of trades that may be submitted as Sponsored Member Trades and discusses the application of Rule 14 (Forward Trades) and Rule 18 (Special Provisions for Repo Transactions) to Sponsored Member Trades. The requirements that Sponsored GC Trades must meet would be separately enumerated in Section 7, and the provisions of Rules 14 and 18, which only apply to transactions eligible for FICC's general netting system, would not apply to such Sponsored GC Trades.
FICC also proposes to revise Rule 3A, Section 6 (Trade Submission and the Comparison System) to state that the current Schedule of Timeframes would apply to Sponsored Member Trades other than Sponsored GC Trades. The proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes would apply to Sponsored GC Trades.
Section 7 (The Netting System, Novation and Guaranty of Settlement) of Rule 3A would be revised to create a proposed new paragraph (a). The proposed new paragraph (a) would provide that the current provisions of Section 7, which would be reorganized as proposed new subparagraphs (i) through (iv) of proposed new paragraph (a), apply to Sponsored Member Trades other than Sponsored GC Trades. These provisions concern the netting and Novation of Sponsored Member Trades. As discussed below, different provisions would apply to Sponsored GC Trades.
Proposed new paragraph (b) of Section 7 would only apply to Sponsored GC Trades. Proposed new subparagraph (i) of proposed new paragraph (b) of Section 7 would provide that only the End Legs of a Sponsored GC Trade may be novated to FICC and that a Sponsored GC Trade is permitted (but not required) to have an Initial Haircut. Proposed new subparagraph (ii) of proposed new paragraph (b) of Section 7 would provide requirements that would have to be satisfied in order for a Sponsored GC Trade to be novated on a given Business Day. The following requirements would be included: (A) The trade data on the Sponsored GC Trade must have been submitted to FICC by the Sponsoring Member pursuant to Rule 6A by the deadline set forth in FICC's proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes, (B) the data on the Sponsored GC Trade must have been compared in the Comparison System pursuant to Rule 6A, (C) the Start Leg of the Sponsored GC Trade must have fully settled at the Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank by
Section 8 (Securities Settlement) of Rule 3A would be revised to create a new paragraph (a). The proposed new paragraph (a) would provide that the bulk of the current provisions of Section 8, which would be reorganized as subparagraphs (i) through (vii) of proposed new paragraph (a), apply to Sponsored Member Trades other than Sponsored GC Trades. Those provisions concern the process for settling Sponsored Member Trades. As discussed below, different settlement requirements would apply to Sponsored GC Trades.
Proposed new paragraph (b) of Section 8 would apply only to Sponsored GC Trades. Proposed new subparagraph (i) of proposed new paragraph (b) of Section 8 would state that GC Collateral Return Obligations and cash payment obligations associated with GC Collateral Return Entitlements must be satisfied by a GC Funds Lender and GC Funds Borrower, respectively, within the timeframes established for such by FICC in the proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes. In addition, any failure by the GC Funds Borrower to satisfy its cash payment obligations associated with GC Collateral Return Entitlements within the timeframe established for such by FICC in the proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes would subject the GC Funds Borrower to a late fee as if such GC Funds Borrower were a Net Funds Payor within the meaning of Section IX of the Fee Structure (Late Fee Related to GCF Repo Transactions). Proposed new subparagraph (ii) of proposed new paragraph (b) of Section 8 would state that if on any Business Day, the market value of a GC Funds Borrower's GC Collateral Return Entitlement from the previous Business Day (or the current Business Day) is less than the GC Start Leg Market Value, then such GC Funds Borrower would deliver to FICC (and FICC would deliver to the relevant GC Funds Lender) additional GC Comparable Securities and/or cash, such that the market value of the GC Funds Borrower's GC Collateral Return Entitlement (and the market value of the relevant GC Funds Lender's GC Collateral Return Obligation) is at least equal to the GC Start Leg Market Value. Such additional securities and/or cash must be delivered by the GC Funds Borrower within the timeframe set forth in the proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes. Proposed new subparagraph (iii) of proposed new paragraph (b) of Section 8 would state that if on any Business Day, the market value of a GC Funds Lender's GC Collateral Return Obligation from the previous Business Day (or the current Business Day) is greater than the GC Start Leg Market Value, then such GC Funds Lender would deliver to FICC (and FICC would deliver to the relevant GC Funds Borrower) some of the Purchased GC Repo Securities, such that the market value of the GC Funds Lender's GC Collateral Return Obligation (and the market value of the relevant GC Funds Borrower's Collateral Return Entitlement) is at least equal to the GC Start Leg Market Value. Such Purchased GC Repo Securities must be delivered within the timeframe set forth in the proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes. Proposed new subparagraph (iv) of proposed new paragraph (b) of Section 8 would state that each GC Funds Borrower (or if the repo rate for the relevant Sponsored GC Trade is negative, the GC Funds Lender) would, within the timeframe set forth in the proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes, pay the daily accrued GC Daily Repo Interest to FICC (and FICC would pay such GC Daily Repo Interest to the GC Funds Lender or GC Funds Borrower, as applicable). Proposed new subparagraph (v) of proposed new paragraph (b) of Section 8 would state that a GC Funds Borrower may substitute cash and/or GC Comparable Securities for any Purchased GC Repo Securities in accordance with the timeframe set forth in the proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes. Proposed new subparagraph (vi) of proposed new paragraph (b) of Section 8 would state that FICC directs each Sponsored Member and Sponsoring Member to satisfy any payment or delivery obligation due to FICC, except for any obligation to pay a Funds-Only Settlement Amount, by making the relevant payment or delivery to an account at the relevant Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank specified by the pre-Novation counterparty to the Sponsored Member or Sponsoring Member, as applicable, in accordance with such procedures as the Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank may specify from time to time. Each Sponsored Member and Sponsoring Member that is owed any such payment or delivery from FICC would acknowledge and agree that, if the pre-Novation counterparty to such Sponsored GC Trade makes the relevant payment or delivery as described in the prior sentence, FICC's obligation to make such payment or delivery would be discharged and satisfied in full. Proposed new subparagraph (vii) of proposed new paragraph (b) of Section 8 would state that the market value of all GC Repo Securities would be determined by the relevant Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank each Business Day.
In addition, FICC proposes to move language from current Section 8(a) to proposed new Section 8(c). Proposed new Section 8(c) would state that notwithstanding the foregoing and any other activities the Sponsoring Member may perform in its capacity as agent for Sponsored Members, each Sponsored Member would be principally obligated to FICC with respect to all securities settlement obligations under the Rules, and the Sponsoring Member would not be a principal under the Rules with respect to the settlement obligations of its Sponsored Members. This provision would apply to both Sponsored GC Trades as well as other kinds of Sponsored Member Trades.
FICC also proposes to revise Section 9 of Rule 3A to state which provisions would apply to Sponsored Member Trades other than Sponsored GC Trades, which provisions would apply only to Sponsored GC Trades, and which provisions would apply to all
FICC proposes to add Section 10(i) to Rule 3A that would state that for purposes of applying Rule 4 to a Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account, each Sponsored GC Trade would be treated as a GCF Repo Transaction, each GC Funds Lender and GC Funds Borrower would be treated as a GCF Counterparty, and each Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank would be treated as a GCF Clearing Agent Bank.
FICC would also revise Section 4 of Rule 5 (Comparison System) to add Sponsored GC Trades. Specifically, Section 4 of Rule 5 would be revised to state that GCF Repo Transactions and Sponsored GC Trades must be submitted exactly as executed.
FICC is also proposing to add a new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes that would only be applicable to Sponsored GC Trades. The proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes would state that the time during which reports would be made available with respect to end of day Clearing Fund requirements and funds-only settlement requirements would be from 10:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. In addition, it would state that 2:00 p.m. would be the time during which reports would be made available with respect to intraday Clearing Fund requirements, and intraday funds-only settlement requirements. The proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes would also state that at 10:00 a.m., funds-only settlement debits and credits are executed via the Federal Reserve's National Settlement Service and at 4:30 p.m., the intraday funds-only settlement debits and credits are executed via the Federal Reserve's National Settlement Service.
The proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes would also state that 9:00 a.m. would be the deadline for the GC Funds Borrower to satisfy the obligation described in proposed Section 8(b)(ii) of Rule 3A in accordance with the provisions of proposed Section 8(b)(vi) of Rule 3A. It would also state that FICC reserves the right to also require a GC Funds Borrower to satisfy the obligation described in proposed Section 8(b)(ii) on an intraday basis based on the market value of the applicable GC Repo Securities as determined by the GC Clearing Agent Bank in accordance with proposed Section 8(b)(vii) of Rule 3A. It would also state that 12:00 p.m. would be the deadline for the GC Funds Borrower (or if the repo rate for the relevant Sponsored GC Trade is negative, the GC Funds Lender) to pay to FICC the accrued GC Daily Repo Interest as described in proposed Section 8(b)(iv) in accordance with the provisions of proposed Section 8(b)(vi) of Rule 3A (unless the End Leg of the related Sponsored GC Trade is due to settle on the same day). The proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Timeframes would state that any accrued GC Daily Repo Interest that is due on the settlement day of the End Leg of the related Sponsored GC Trade would be paid in connection with the settlement of the End Leg.
The proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes would also state that 5:00 p.m. would be the deadline for final input by the Sponsoring Members to FICC of Sponsored GC Trade data. Furthermore, 5:30 p.m. would be the deadline for (i) full settlement of the Start Leg of the Sponsored GC Trade in accordance with proposed Section 7(b)(ii)(C) of Rule 3A, (ii) substitutions of Purchased GC Repo Securities in accordance with proposed Section 8(b)(v) of Rule 3A, and (iii) satisfaction of GC Collateral Return Obligations and cash payment obligations associated with GC Collateral Return Entitlements by GC Funds Lenders and GC Funds Borrowers, respectively, in accordance with proposed Section 8(b)(i) of Rule 3A.
The proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes would also state that the time by which a GC Funds Lender would be required to deliver any securities to a GC Funds Borrower in connection with proposed Section 8(b)(iii) of Rule 3A would be determined by the relevant Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank. Furthermore, it would state that all times may be extended as needed by FICC to (i) address operational or other delays that would reasonably prevent members or FICC from meeting the deadline or timeframe, as applicable, or (ii) allow the FICC time to operationally exercise its existing rights under the Rules. In addition, it would state that times applicable to FICC are standards and not deadlines and that actual processing times may vary slightly, as necessary.
FICC also proposes to revise the Schedule for the Deletion of Trade Data to state which provisions would not apply to Sponsored GC Trades. In addition, FICC would also add language to state that trade data on Sponsored GC Trades that remain uncompared on a given Business Day would pend in the Comparison System until FICC's deadline for final input by Sponsoring Members of Sponsored GC Trade data (as provided in the Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes) on such Business Day. FICC would also add language to state that trade data on Sponsored GC Trades, which have been compared in the Comparison System pursuant to Rule 6A but the Start Legs of which have not fully settled at a Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank by the deadline set forth in FICC's proposed new Schedule of Sponsored GC Trade Timeframes, would be deleted from the Comparison System during the same processing cycle as the Repo Start Date for such Sponsored GC Trades.
FICC also proposes to revise the Schedule of Required Data Submission Items to state that items (1) and (2) in this schedule would not be required for Sponsored Member Trades.
FICC also proposes to revise the following schedules to exclude Sponsored GC Trades: (i) Schedule of Required and Accepted Data Submission Items for a Substitution and (ii) Schedule of Required and Accepted Data Submission Items for New Securities Collateral.
In addition, as described above, FICC would add a proposed new Schedule of GC Comparable Securities.
As described above, Sponsored Member Trades between a Sponsoring Member and its Sponsored Member in the existing Service do not independently create liquidity risk for FICC. This is because FICC is not required to complete settlement of such Sponsored Member Trades in the event that either the Sponsoring Member or
Accordingly, liquidity risk to FICC is only increased to the extent the Sponsoring Member enters into a Repo Transaction with a third-party Netting Member that is novated to FICC. Such a Repo Transaction creates liquidity risk to FICC because, in the event of the Sponsoring Member's default, FICC is required to settle with such third-party Netting Member.
In light of this, FICC believes that a Sponsored Member Trade should only increase the obligation of a Sponsoring Member with respect to FICC's CCLF to the extent the Sponsoring Member offsets that trade with a Repo Transaction entered into with a third-party Netting Member that is novated to FICC. To the extent a Sponsoring Member either (1) enters into an offsetting Sponsored Member Trade with another Sponsored Member (
Currently, FICC does not impose a CCLF obligation on a Sponsoring Member to the extent the Sponsoring Member runs a matched book of Sponsored Member Trades. This is because FICC calculates a Sponsoring Member's CCLF obligation based on the net settlement obligations of its Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account and the net settlement obligations of the Sponsoring Member's netting account.
However, currently, if a Sponsoring Member enters into a Sponsored Member Trade without entering into an offsetting transaction, it is subject to CCLF obligations for the position of its Sponsored Member recorded in its Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account as well as its own position arising from the Sponsored Member Trade recorded in its netting account. This is because, although the positions in the Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account and netting account arising from such Sponsored Member Trade are perfectly offsetting, FICC does not currently net them against each other for CCLF purposes due to the current CCLF allocation being calculated at the participant account level.
Although this limitation on offset is consistent with FICC's approach of not offsetting the positions of two accounts of the same Member for CCLF purposes, there is an important difference between Sponsored Member Trades and other FICC repo activity. As discussed above, the Service requires that a Sponsoring Member have a Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account that is separate from its netting account. For all other repo activity, the Member has the option to collapse all of its activity into a single participant account in order to achieve a similar netting benefit. Sponsoring Members do not have that option with respect to their Sponsored Member Trades, so FICC believes this proposed change is necessary to ensure that a Sponsoring Member's CCLF obligations are calculated in a manner that more closely aligns with the liquidity risk associated with Sponsored Member Trades.
In order to ensure that a Sponsoring Member's CCLF obligation is calculated in a manner that more closely aligns with the liquidity risk associated with Sponsored Member Trades, FICC proposes to add language to Rule 3A to allow it to recognize, for CCLF calculation purposes, any offsetting settlement obligations as between a Sponsoring Member's netting account and its Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account. This proposed change would ensure that all Sponsored Member Trades, whether perfectly offset by other Sponsored Member Trades or not, would be recognized for CCLF purposes as not affecting FICC's liquidity risk. With respect to Sponsored GC Trades in particular, this proposed change would ensure that FICC applies an appropriate CCLF obligation to a Sponsoring Member in the event a Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank allocates to a Sponsored GC Trade a different security than the security that underlies an offsetting Sponsored Member Trade.
Specifically, FICC proposes to add new Section 8(d) to Rule 3A, which would state that FICC, when calculating Individual Total Amounts
FICC has conducted a study for the period from January 1, 2021 to March 30, 2021 as to the impact on FICC/GSD Netting Members' CCLF allocations as a result of recognizing offset between positions in a Sponsoring Member's netting account and its Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account. The impact of recognition of the offsetting positions as between a Sponsoring Member's netting account and its Sponsoring Member Omnibus Account relates strictly to the allocation of the total CCLF facility amongst the FICC/GSD netting membership, with certain Sponsoring Members receiving less allocation of CCLF once the offsets between the Sponsoring Member's
FICC also proposes to remove the requirement from Section 2 of Rule 3A that a Sponsoring Member provide to FICC a quarterly representation that each of its Sponsored Members is a “qualified institutional buyer” as defined in Rule 144A, or is a legal entity that, although not organized as an entity specifically listed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of Rule 144A, satisfies the financial requirements necessary to be a “qualified institutional buyer” as specified in that paragraph.
To effectuate the proposed changes described above, FICC would revise Rule 3A to remove Section 2(d).
FICC proposes to make a clarification to the Rules. Specifically, in the definition of Initial Haircut, FICC proposes to add the phrase “, if any,” after “absolute value of the dollar difference.”
FICC also proposes to make certain corrections to the Rules.
First, FICC proposes to correct the definition of Initial Haircut in Rule 1 so that it would be defined, with respect to Sponsored Member Trades that are not Sponsored GC Trades, as the absolute dollar difference between the Market Value of the Sponsored Member Trade, as of the settlement date of the Start Leg, and the Contract Value of the Start Leg of the Sponsored Member Trade, instead of the Contract Value of the Close Leg (as is currently provided).
Second, FICC proposes to correct the reference in Rule 3A, Section 3(a)(ii)(B) to paragraph (a)(1)(i)(H) of Rule 144A instead of paragraph (a)(1)(i) of Rule 144A (as is currently provided).
Third, FICC also proposes to correct a typographical error in Section VII (Fee Structure) by revising from the reference to Additional Sponsored GC Credit instead of Additional Sponsored GC Assessment (as is currently provided).
FICC also proposes to make certain technical changes, such as numbering and renumbering sections and making conforming grammatical changes.
For example, because FICC is removing Section 2(d) of Rule 3A, FICC proposes to renumber the subsequent subsections in Rule 3A, Section 2. Specifically, FICC proposes to renumber current Sections 2(e), 2(f), 2(g), 2(h), 2(i), and 2(j) as Sections 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 2(g), 2(h), and 2(i), respectively.
In addition, Section 7 of Rule 3A, in connection with FICC's creation of a proposed new paragraph (a) as described above, FICC proposes to renumber current Sections 7(a), 7(b), 7(c) and 7(d) as new Sections 7(a)(i), 7(a)(ii), 7(a)(iii) and 7(a)(iv), respectively. In addition, in current Sections 8(b) and 8(c), FICC proposes to revise the references from Section 7 to Section 7(a) to reflect the proposed renumbering of Section 7 described above.
Likewise, in Section 8 of Rule 3A, in connection with FICC's creation of a proposed new paragraph (a) as described above, FICC proposes to renumber current Sections 8(a), 8(b), 8(c), 8(d), 8(e), 8(f) and 8(g) as new Sections 8(a)(i), 8(a)(ii), 8(a)(iii), 8(a)(iv), 8(a)(v), 8(a)(vi), and 8(a)(vii), respectively. In addition, in current Section 8(a), FICC proposes to revise the reference from Section 8(c) to Section 8(a)(iii) to reflect the proposed renumbering of Section 8 described above. In current Section 8(f), FICC also proposes to revise the reference from subsection (b) to subsection (a)(ii) to reflect the proposed renumbering of Section 8 described above.
In addition, in current Section 9 of Rule 3A, in connection with FICC's addition of proposed new paragraph (b) as described above, FICC proposes to renumber current Sections 9(b), 9(c), 9(d) and 9(e) as new Sections 9(c)(i), 9(c)(ii), 9(c)(iii) and 9(c)(iv), respectively.
Because FICC is adding Sponsored GC Trades to the definition of Sponsored Member Trade as described above, FICC would create new sections (a) and (b) and renumber current sections (a) and (b) as subsections (i) and (ii) of new section (a). FICC would also revise the definition of Same-Day Settling Trade and current Section 8(c) and Section 18(a) of Rule 3A to reflect the proposed changes to the Sponsored Member Trade definition.
In addition, in the definition of Initial Haircut, FICC is proposing to add section numbers (i) and (ii) to make it clear that proposed section (i) of the definition would apply to any Sponsored Member Trade that is not a Sponsored GC Trade and proposed section (ii) would apply to any Sponsored Member Trade.
In addition, FICC would also make certain conforming grammatical changes. For example, FICC would add a comma and move the word “and” in the definition of Generic CUSIP Number to reflect the addition of Sponsored GC Trades. Similarly, in each of the (i) Schedule of Required and Accepted Data Submission Items for a Substitution and (ii) Schedule of Required and Accepted Data Submission Items for New Securities Collateral, FICC would also add a comma and move the word “and” as conforming grammatical changes. As another example, FICC would also add the word “or” in the definition of Sponsored Member Trade to reflect the addition of Sponsored GC Trades. In the definition of Initial Haircut, FICC would also add the word “and” to reflect the addition of proposed section (ii). As another example, in Section 18(a) of Rule 3A, FICC would revise the reference from subsection to subsections to reflect the proposed changes to the definition of Sponsored Member Trades described above.
FICC believes that the proposed changes in Item II(B)(ii) above, specifically adding a new way to settle in the Service for Sponsored GC Trades, could affect the performance of essential clearing and settlement functions.
Otherwise, all legal rights and obligations as between FICC and Sponsoring Members, and as between FICC and Sponsored Members, would be the same with respect to Sponsored GC Trades as with respect to Sponsored Member Trades in the existing Service, which is governed by Rule 3A.
While Sponsored GC Trades would settle between the Sponsoring Member and Sponsored Member on a trade for trade basis on a Sponsored Member's tri-party repo platform (consistent with the manner those firms settle repo with each other outside of central clearing), as opposed to settling through FICC's tri-party account in the manner that GCF Repo activity settles, FICC would nonetheless monitor the settlement status of Sponsored GC Trades through hourly (or more frequent) reporting to be provided by the Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank to FICC as the Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank, and the administration of collateralization to address mark-to-market changes in the value of the securities collateral associated with Sponsored GC activity would be monitored by FICC in a manner consistent with the way that it monitors GCF Repo activity.
FICC believes that the proposed rule change would be consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
FICC believes that the proposed changes described in Items II(B)(ii) and II(B)(iii) above are consistent with the objectives of and principles of Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act cited above because FICC believes that these proposed changes would enable and may encourage Sponsoring Members to submit a greater number of securities transactions to be cleared and settled by FICC. FICC believes that having more securities transactions clear and settle through FICC would also help to promote safety and soundness, reduce systemic risks, and support the stability of the broader financial system by mitigating the risk of a large-scale exit by institutional firms from the U.S. financial market in a stress scenario through FICC's guaranty of completion of settlement for a greater number of eligible securities transactions. By mitigating the risk of a large-scale exit by institutional firms from the U.S. financial market in a stress scenario and having more securities transactions that clear and settle through FICC in the context of its risk management processes, FICC believes the proposed rule changes described in Items II(B)(ii) and II(B)(iii) above would promote robust risk management, promote safety and soundness, reduce systemic risks, and support the stability of the broader financial system. Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed rule changes described in Items II(B)(ii) and II(B)(iii) above are consistent with the objectives and principles of Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act cited above.
FICC also believes that the proposed changes described in Items II(B)(iv) and II(B)(v) above are designed to provide clear and coherent Rules regarding Sponsoring Members. FICC believes that clear and coherent Rules should enhance the ability of FICC and Sponsoring Members to more effectively plan for, manage, and address the risks and financial requirements related to Sponsoring Members. As such, FICC believes that the proposed changes described in Items II(B)(iv) and II(B)(v) above are designed to promote robust risk management, consistent with the objectives and principles of Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act cited above.
FICC also believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7),
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) under the Act requires FICC to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by the covered clearing agency, including measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18) under the Act requires FICC to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to establish objective, risk-based, and publicly disclosed criteria for participation, which permit fair and open access by direct, and where relevant, indirect participants and other financial market utilities, require participants to have sufficient financial resources and robust operational capacity to meet obligations arising from participation in the clearing agency, and monitor compliance with such participation requirements on an ongoing basis.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21)(i) under the Act requires FICC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to be efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves, and have the covered clearing agency's management regularly review the efficiency and effectiveness of its clearing and settlement arrangements.
The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the date that the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date that any additional information requested by the Commission is received. The clearing agency shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.
The clearing agency shall post notice on its website of proposed changes that are implemented.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Advance Notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 11, 2021,
The Amendment was published for comment in the
The Amendment proposes revisions to the Plan's provisions governing Regulatory Halts
With respect to declaration of a Regulatory Halt, the Amendment would provide that the Primary Listing Market
The Amendment would further provide that, in determining whether to declare a Regulatory Halt, the Primary Listing Market will consider the totality of information available concerning the severity of the issue, its likely duration, and potential impact on Member Firms and other market participants, and will make a good-faith determination that the criteria to declare a Regulatory Halt have been satisfied and that a Regulatory Halt is appropriate.
The Amendment would specify procedures for initiating a Regulatory Halt. Specifically, when initiating a Regulatory Halt, the start time of a Regulatory Halt would be when the Primary Listing Market declares the halt, regardless of whether an issue with communications impacts the dissemination of the notice.
The Amendment would specify certain procedures for the resumption of trading following (1) Regulatory Halts other than a SIP Halts and (2) SIP Halts.
With respect to the resumption of trading after a Regulatory Halt other than a SIP Halt, the Amendment would provide that the Primary Listing Market will declare a resumption of trading when it makes a good-faith determination that trading may resume in a fair and orderly manner and in accordance with its rules.
With respect to the resumption of trading after a SIP Halt, the Amendment would provide that the Primary Listing Market will determine the SIP Halt Resume Time.
Finally, the Amendment would provide that during Regular Trading Hours, if the Primary Listing Market does not open a security within the amount of time as specified by the rules of the Primary Listing Market after the SIP Halt Resume Time, a Participant may resume trading in that security.
The Amendment addresses communications regarding trading halts. Specifically, the Amendment would provide that, whenever in the exercise of its regulatory functions, the Primary Listing Market for an Eligible Security determines it is appropriate to initiate a Regulatory Halt, the Primary Listing Market will notify all other Participants and the Processor of such Regulatory Halt and will provide notice that a Regulatory Halt has been lifted using such protocols and other emergency procedures as may be mutually agreed to between the Operating Committee and the Primary Listing Market.
With respect to Operational Halts,
After careful review, the Commission is approving the Amendment, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, for the reasons discussed below. Section 11A of the Act authorizes the Commission, by rule or order, to authorize or require the self-regulatory organizations to act jointly with respect to matters as to which they share authority under the Act in planning, developing, operating, or regulating a facility of the national market system.
As stated above, the Commission received one comment letter regarding the proposed Amendment. The commenter states that the Amendment should be approved as filed.
The Commission agrees that the Amendment, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the Act and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS.
The Commission further believes that the proposed requirement for Primary Listing Markets to make good-faith determinations
For the reasons discussed, the Commission finds that the Amendment to the Nasdaq/UTP Plan, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and in
By the Commission.
On February 3, 2021,
The Amendments were published for comment in the
The Amendments propose revisions to the Plans' provisions governing Regulatory Halts
With respect to declaration of a Regulatory Halt, the Amendments would provide that the Primary Listing Market
The Amendments would further provide that, in determining whether to declare a Regulatory Halt, the Primary Listing Market will consider the totality of information available concerning the severity of the issue, its likely duration, and potential impact on Member Firms and other market participants, and will make a good-faith determination that the criteria to declare a Regulatory Halt have been satisfied and that a Regulatory Halt is appropriate.
The Amendments would specify procedures for initiating a Regulatory Halt. Specifically, when initiating a Regulatory Halt, the start time of a Regulatory Halt would be when the Primary Listing Market declares the halt, regardless of whether an issue with communications impacts the dissemination of the notice.
The Amendments would specify certain procedures for the resumption of trading following (1) Regulatory Halts other than a SIP Halts and (2) SIP Halts.
With respect to the resumption of trading after a Regulatory Halt other than a SIP Halt, the Amendments would provide that the Primary Listing Market will declare a resumption of trading when it makes a good-faith determination that trading may resume in a fair and orderly manner and in accordance with its rules.
With respect to the resumption of trading after a SIP Halt, the Amendments would provide that the Primary Listing Market will determine the SIP Halt Resume Time.
Finally, the Amendments would provide that during Regular Trading Hours, if the Primary Listing Market does not open a security within the amount of time as specified by the rules of the Primary Listing Market after the SIP Halt Resume Time, a Participant may resume trading in that security.
The Amendments address communications regarding trading halts. Specifically, the Amendments would provide that, whenever in the exercise of its regulatory functions the Primary Listing Market for an Eligible Security determines it is appropriate to initiate a Regulatory Halt, the Primary Listing
With respect to Operational Halts,
After careful review, the Commission is approving the Amendments, for the reasons discussed below. Section 11A of the Act authorizes the Commission, by rule or order, to authorize or require the self-regulatory organizations to act jointly with respect to matters as to which they share authority under the Act in planning, developing, operating, or regulating a facility of the national market system.
As stated above, the Commission received one comment letter regarding the proposed Amendments. The commenter states that the Amendments should be approved as filed.
The Commission agrees that the Amendments are consistent with the Act and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS.
The Commission further believes that the proposed requirement for Primary Listing Markets to make good-faith determinations
For the reasons discussed, the Commission finds that the Amendments to the Plans, are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and in particular, Section 11A of the Act
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “C2”) proposes to align the Exchange's rulebook with the rulebook of its affiliated Exchange, Cboe Options, Inc. (“Cboe Options”) and make other formatting changes. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to align the numbers of its rules in the Exchange's Rulebook with the numbers of the same (or substantially similar) rules within the rulebook of its affiliated exchange, Cboe Options.
The
The proposed rule change makes no substantive changes to any rule text.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest by aligning the numbers and format of the Exchange's rules within its Rulebook with the rule numbers of the same rules in the rulebook of Cboe Options, which is affiliated with the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change has no competitive impact, as it merely changes the numbers of certain rules (and updates cross-references, as appropriate) and chapter and section heading names and font, but makes no substantive changes to any rule text.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 5050 (Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading). This proposal seeks to limit Short Term Options Series intervals between strikes which are available for quoting and trading on BOX. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5050, “Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading.” Specifically, this proposal seeks to limit the intervals between strikes for multiply listed equity options classes within the Short Term Options Series program that have an expiration date more than twenty-one days from the listing.
Today, BOX's listing rules within Rule 5050 permits the Exchange, after a particular class of options (call option contracts or put option contracts relating to a specific underlying stock, Exchange-Traded Fund Share,
The Exchange's proposal seeks to amend the listing of weekly series of options as proposed within new Supplementary Material .03(f) of Options 4, Section 5, by limiting the intervals between strikes in multiply listed equity options, excluding Exchange-Traded Fund Shares and ETNs, that have an expiration date more than twenty-one days from the listing date. This proposal does not amend monthly or quarterly listing rules nor does it amend the $1 Strike Price Interval Program, the $0.50 Strike Program, the $2.50 Strike Price Program, or the $5 Strike Program.
Today, IM-5050-6 permits BOX to open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day (“Short Term Option Opening Date”) series of options on an option class that expires at the close of business on each of the next five Fridays that are business days and are not Fridays in which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Short Term Option Expiration Dates”), provided an option class has been approved for listing and trading on the Exchange.
The Exchange may open for trading Short Term Option Series on the Short Term Option Opening Date that expire on the Short Term Option Expiration Date at strike price intervals of (i) $0.50 or greater where the strike price is less than $100, and $1 or greater where the strike price is between $100 and $150 for all option classes that participate in the Short Term Options Series Program; (ii) $0.50 for option classes that trade in one dollar increments and are in the Short Term Option Series Program; or
The Exchange may select up to fifty currently listed option classes on which Short Term Option Series may be opened on any Short Term Option Opening Date. In addition to the fifty option class restriction, the Exchange may also list Short Term Option Series on any option classes that are selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar program under their respective rules. For each option class eligible for participation in the Short Term Option Series Program, the Exchange may open up to thirty Short Term Option Series for each expiration date in that class. The Exchange may also open Short Term Option Series that are opened by other securities exchanges in option classes selected by such exchanges under their respective short term option rules.
The Exchange notes that listings in the weekly program comprise a significant part of the standard listing in options markets and that the industry has observed a notable increase over approximately the last five years in compound annual growth rate (“CAGR”) of weekly strikes as compared to CAGR for standard third-Friday expirations.
The Exchange proposes to widen the intervals between strikes in order to limit the number of strikes listed for equity options (excluding options on ETFs and ETNs) listed as part of the Short Term Option Series Program that have an expiration date more than 21 days from the listing date, by adopting proposed Rule 4.5(d)(6). The Exchange notes that this proposal is substantively identical to the strike interval proposal recently submitted by Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“BX”) and approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
The proposal widens intervals between strikes for expiration dates of equity option series (excluding options on ETFs and ETNs) beyond 21 days utilizing the three-tiered table in proposed IM-5050-11 (presented below) which considers both the Share Price and Average Daily Volume for the option series. The table indicates the applicable strike intervals and supersedes IM-6090-2(b)(4), which currently permits 10 additional series to be opened for trading on the Exchange when the Exchange deems it necessary to maintain an orderly market, to meet customer demand or when the market price of the underlying security moves substantially from the exercise price or prices of the series already opened. As a result of the proposal, IM-6090-2(b)(4) would not permit an additional series of an equity option to have an expiration date more than 21 days from the listing date to be opened for trading on the Exchange despite the noted circumstances in subparagraph (b)(4) when such additional series may otherwise be added.
The Share Price would be the closing price on the primary market on the last day of the calendar quarter. This value would be used to derive the column from which to apply strike intervals throughout the next calendar quarter. The Average Daily Volume would be the total number of options contracts traded in a given security for the applicable calendar quarter divided by the number of trading days in the applicable calendar quarter. Beginning on the second trading day in the first month of each calendar quarter, the Average Daily Volume shall be calculated by utilizing data from the prior calendar quarter based on Customer-cleared volume at OCC. For options listed on the first trading day of a given calendar quarter, the Average Daily Volume shall be calculated using the calendar quarter prior to the last trading calendar quarter.
The Exchange proposes that Short Term Options Series that are newly eligible for listing pursuant to Rule 5020(a) will not be subject to this proposed IM-5050-11 until after the end of the first full calendar quarter following the date the option class was first listed for trading on any options market.
In the event of a corporate action, the Share Price of the surviving company would be utilized. These metrics are intended to align expectations for determining which strike intervals will be utilized. Finally, notwithstanding the limitations imposed by proposed IM-5050-11, this Strike Interval Proposal does not amend the range of strikes that may be listed pursuant to IM-5050-6, regarding the Short Term Option Series Program.
By way of example, if the Share Price for a symbol was $142 at the end of a calendar quarter, with an Average Daily Volume greater than 5,000, thereby, requiring strike intervals to be listed $1.00 apart, that strike interval would apply for the calendar quarter, regardless of whether the Share Price changed to greater than $150 during that calendar quarter.
The proposed table within IM-5050-11 takes into account the notional value of a security, as well as Average Daily Volume in the underlying stock, in order to limit the intervals between strikes in the Short Term Options listing program. BOX would utilize OCC Customer-cleared volume, as customer volume is an appropriate proxy for demand. The OCC Customer-cleared volume represents the majority of options volume executed on the Exchange that, in turn, reflects the demand in the marketplace. The options series listed on BOX are intended to meet customer demand by offering an appropriate number of strikes. Non-Customer cleared OCC volume represents the supply side. The strike intervals for listing strikes in certain options are intended to remove repetitive and unnecessary strike listings across the weekly expiries. BOX's Strike Interval Proposal seeks to reduce the number of strikes in the furthest weeklies, where there exist wider markets and therefore lower market quality.
The proposed table within IM-5050-11 is intended to distribute strike intervals in multiply listed equity options where there is less volume as measured by the Average Daily Volume tiers. Therefore, the lower the Average Daily Volume, the greater the proposed spread between strike intervals. Options classes with higher volume contain the most liquid symbols and strikes, therefore the finer the proposed spread between strike intervals. Additionally, lower-priced shares have finer strike intervals than higher-priced shares when comparing the proposed spread between strike intervals.
Today, weeklies are available on 16% of underlying products. The Exchange's Strike Interval Proposal curtails the density of strike intervals listed in series of options, without reducing the classes of options available for trading on BX. Short Term Options Series with an expiration date greater than twenty-one days from the listing date equates to 7.5% of the total number of strikes in the options market, which equals 81,000 strikes.
This Strike Interval Proposal serves to respond to comments received from industry members with respect to the increasing number of strikes that are required to be quoted by market makers in the options industry. BOX requires Market Makers to quote a certain amount of time in the trading day in their assigned options series to maintain liquidity in the market.
The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed changes on July 1, 2021. The Exchange will issue a notice to its Participants with the date of implementation. Lastly, the Exchange will issue a notice to its Participants whenever the Exchange is the first exchange to list an eligible Short Term Option Series.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Strike Interval Proposal takes into account customer demand for certain options classes by considering both the Share Price and the Average Daily Volume in the underlying security to arrive at the manner in which weekly strike intervals would be listed in the later weeks for each multiply listed equity options class. The Exchange utilizes OCC Customer-cleared volume, as customer volume is an appropriate proxy for demand. The OCC Customer-cleared volume represents the majority of options volume executed on the Exchange that, in turn, reflects the demands in the marketplace. The options series listed on BOX is intended to meet customer demand by offering an appropriate number of strikes. Non-Customer cleared OCC volume represents the supply side.
The Strike Interval Proposal for listing strikes in certain multiply listed equity options is intended to remove certain strikes where there exist clusters of strikes whose characteristics closely resemble one another and, therefore, do not serve different trading needs that renders the strikes less useful and thereby protects investors and the general public by removing an abundance of unnecessary choices for an options series, while also improving market quality. BOX's Strike Interval Proposal seeks to reduce the number of strikes in the furthest weeklies, where there exist wider markets, and, therefore, lower market quality. The implementation of the proposed table is intended to spread strike intervals in multiply listed equity options, where there is less volume that is measured by the average daily volume tiers. Therefore, the lower the average daily volume, the greater the proposed spread between strike intervals. Options classes with higher volume contain the most liquid symbols and strikes, therefore the finer the proposed spread between strike intervals. Additionally, lower-priced shares have finer strike intervals than higher-priced shares when comparing the proposed spread between strike intervals.
Beginning on the second trading day in the first month of each calendar quarter, the Average Daily Volume shall be calculated by utilizing data from the prior calendar quarter based on OCC Customer-cleared volume. Utilizing the second trading day allows the Exchange to accumulate data regarding OCC Customer-cleared volume from the entire prior quarter. Beginning on the second trading day would allow trades executed on the last day of the previous calendar quarter to have settled
As stated, the proposal is substantively identical to the strike interval proposal recently submitted by BX and approved by the Commission.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as the proposed rule change limits the number of Short Term Option Series strikes available for quoting and trading on the Exchange for all market participants. Therefore, all market participants will equally be able to transact in options series in the strikes listed for trading on the Exchange. The proposal is intended to reduce the number of strikes for weekly options listed in later weeks without reducing the number of classes of options available for trading on the Exchange while also continuing to offer an appropriate number of strikes the Exchange believes will meet market participants' investment objectives.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as it only impacts the permissible strike intervals for certain options series listed on the Exchange. Additionally, another options exchange has recently implemented a substantively identical to the strike interval proposal recently submitted by BX and approved by the Commission.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii)
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.
On February 10, 2021, the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-OCC-2021-003, (“Proposed Rule Change”) pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
Since the proposal contained in the Proposed Rule Change was also filed as an advance notice, all public comments received on the proposal are considered regardless of whether the comments are submitted on the Proposed Rule Change or the Advance Notice. Comments on the Advance Notice are available at
“Skin-in-the-game,” as a component of financial risk management, entails a covered clearing agency choosing, upon the occurrence of a default or series of defaults and application of all available assets of the defaulting participant(s), to apply its own capital contribution to the relevant clearing or guaranty fund in full to satisfy any remaining losses prior to the application of any (a) contributions by non-defaulting members to the clearing or guaranty fund, or (b) assessments that the covered clearing agency require non-defaulting participants to contribute following the exhaustion of such participant's funded contributions to the relevant clearing or guaranty fund.
OCC's skin-in-the-game component of its financial risk management regime is described in its current rules, which provide for the use of OCC's own capital to mitigate losses arising out of a Clearing Member default.
OCC reviewed feedback received in connection with the initial filing of its current rules, relevant papers from industry participants and stakeholders concerning skin-in-the-game, and regulatory regimes in jurisdictions outside the United States.
OCC proposes to define the Minimum Corporate Contribution to mean the minimum level of OCC's own funds maintained exclusively to cover credit losses or liquidity shortfalls, the level of which OCC's Board of Directors (the “Board”) shall determine from time to time. To facilitate implementation of OCC's proposal, the Board approved an initial Minimum Corporate Contribution at such a level that OCC's total skin-in-the-game (
OCC proposes change to its Rules, Capital Management Policy, Default Management Policy, Clearing Fund Methodology Policy, and Recovery and Orderly Wind-Down Plan to effectuate the changes described above.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Before addressing the relevant portions of the Exchange Act and rules and regulations thereunder, however, we address a part of the comment submitted by Susquehanna International Group (“SIG”) not related to Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act or Rule17Ad-22(e)(2) thereunder.
SIG also (i) expresses concern regarding OCC's current retention of $325 million in capital; (ii) indicates that OCC should focus on reducing clearing fee rates; and (iii) suggests that the current organization of OCC's shareholders as for profit entities creates a misalignment of interests. SIG Letter at 2. Because these issues do not bear on the grounds for approval or disapproval applicable to the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission does not address them in this order.
The commenter also expressed difficulty in obtaining quantitative data regarding clearing fee refunds and how much, proportionally, fees would contribute to the minimum skin-in-the-game under the Proposed Rule Change.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission continues to regard skin-in-the-game as a potential tool to align the various incentives of a covered clearing agency's stakeholders, including management and clearing members.
The Commission believes that holding a defined Minimum Corporate Contribution, as opposed to an undefined amount of excess capital, would incentivize OCC further to maintain the appropriate amount of resources to manage a Clearing Member default because failure to do so would result in a direct cost to OCC. Incentivizing OCC to maintain an appropriate amount of resources, in turn, could reduce the potential losses charged to the Clearing Fund contributions of non-defaulting Clearing Members in the event of a Clearing Member default, which in turn would help assure the safeguarding of the Clearing Fund contributions of non-defaulting Clearing Members.
In its comment letter, SIG argues that the Proposed Rule Change contravenes the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Commission is not persuaded by SIG's arguments with regard to Section 17A(b)(3)(F). As discussed above, the Commission believes that holding a defined Minimum Corporate Contribution would incentivize OCC further to maintain the appropriate amount of resources to manage a Clearing Member default. Aligning OCC's incentives with risk management considerations, such as default management, supports the public interest because it supports OCC's role as a utility for clearing and settling U.S. listed options. Further, OCC's rules do not require OCC to distribute retained earnings in excess of expenses.
In addition to providing those services customarily provided by clearing houses of national securities exchanges,
SIG argues further that OCC's proposal puts only the public's skin in the game. SIG states that market participants bear the risk imprudent decisions by the exchanges in their capacity as the OCC shareholders and of their designee board members because such participants would be denied a rebate of excess fees.
The Commission is not persuaded by this argument either. SIG's argument assumes that OCC's Clearing Members have a right to clearing fee revenues not applied to operating costs in a given year, but, as noted above in this section, OCC's rules, as approved by the Commission, do not require OCC to distribute retained earnings in excess of expenses. SIG's argument also assumes, without support, that OCC's five Exchange Directors would not only be willing to make “imprudent decisions to the detriment of OCC's Clearing Members,” but that the Exchange Directors would be able to enlist sufficient support among OCC's nine Member Directors to force such “imprudent decisions” through the Board approval process.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) under the Exchange Act requires that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements
As described above, OCC's proposal would not reduce the resources OCC would apply to address default losses or remove the current skin-in-the-game component of OCC's rules. Rather, OCC proposes to set aside a defined amount of capital for the sole purpose of absorbing losses and shortfalls arising out of a Clearing Member default. OCC has clearly stated the factors that the Board would consider when determining the amount of resources to hold as skin-in-the-game, a portion of which would comprise the Minimum Corporate Contribution. OCC also proposes to establish a clear process for addressing reductions in the Minimum Corporate Contribution arising out of a Clearing Member's default. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to establish a persistent minimum level of skin-in-the-game are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) under the Exchange Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act, and in particular, the requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 11, 2021, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Exchange” or “Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Nasdaq closing cross is the Exchange's process for determining the price at which orders will be executed at the close and for executing those orders, and the price determined by the Nasdaq closing cross is the Nasdaq official closing price for securities that participate in the cross.
The LULD closing cross is the Exchange's process for executing closing trades in Nasdaq-listed securities when an LULD trading pause pursuant to Rule 4120(a)(12) exists at or after 3:50 p.m.
Currently, unlike the regular Nasdaq closing cross, the LULD closing cross occurs at 4:00 p.m. unless an order imbalance exists, in which case the Exchange will extend the time of the cross by one minute until the order imbalance no longer exists.
As proposed, for any security that entered a trading pause that was extended prior to 3:50 p.m., the upper (lower) benchmark price would be established by adding (subtracting) a threshold amount to the upper (from the lower) auction collar
The Exchange proposes to initially set the price threshold amounts at the greater of $1.00 or 10% for securities with a reference price greater than $1.00 (or $0.50 for securities with a reference price equal to or less than $1.00).
As proposed, at 4:00 p.m., the Exchange would conduct the LULD closing cross, and if the cross price would fall outside of the benchmark prices, the LULD closing cross would execute all available orders at a price within or equal to the benchmark prices.
Currently, the LULD closing cross price is determined by the same execution algorithm as the regular Nasdaq closing cross.
Currently, Rule 4754(b)(6) provides that, in the event of an LULD closing cross, MOC, LOC, and IO orders intended for the closing cross entered into the system and place on the book prior to the trading pause will remain on the book to participate in the LULD closing cross, but these orders may not be modified or cancelled. Rule 4754(b)(6) also provides that, during the pause and prior to 4:00 p.m., new orders (other than MOC or LOC orders) may be entered, modified, and cancelled and may participate in the LULD closing cross. The Exchange now proposes to modify the handling of MOC, LOC, and IO orders such that they could be entered, modified, and cancelled pursuant to Rules 4702(b)(11), 4702(b)(12), and 4702(b)(13), respectively.
Currently, Rule 4754(b)(6)(B) provides that, in the event of an LULD closing cross, the Exchange continues disseminating the order imbalance indicator (“NOII”) every second until after hours trading begins. The Exchange proposes to amend this rule to also specify the dissemination of the early order imbalance indicator (“EOII”) before the LULD closing cross.
Currently, Rule 4754(b)(6)(B) also provides that the near price, far price, and reference prices contained in the NOII all represent the price at which the LULD closing cross would execute should the cross conclude at that time. As proposed, the near clearing price
The Exchange proposes to specify in Rule 4754(b)(6) that the LULD closing cross process only applies to Nasdaq-listed securities, rather than all stocks. The Exchange also proposes a conforming change in Rule 4754(b)(6)(B)(i) to clarify that the LULD closing cross applies when a trading pauses exists (rather than is triggered) at or after 3:50 p.m. and before 4:00 p.m. Finally, the Exchange proposes to update obsolete cross references in Rules 4756(c)(3)(B) and 4763(b) to Rule 4751.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the proposed benchmark prices and other changes to the LULD closing cross would more closely align the LULD closing cross process with the regular Nasdaq closing cross process and would promote a more consistent experience for those that participate in the crosses. The Commission also believes that the differences between the proposed LULD closing cross process and the regular Nasdaq closing cross process are reasonably designed to reflect the differences in market conditions leading up to the crosses.
More specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed benchmark prices for the LULD closing cross would help ensure that the closing price of a security is reasonably related to current market conditions. The Commission also believes that the addition of benchmark prices would further harmonize the LULD closing cross process with the regular Nasdaq closing cross process, while reflecting market
The Commission also believes that the proposed methodology for determining the LULD closing cross price would reflect the proposed benchmark prices and allow for similar experiences for those that participate in the regular Nasdaq closing cross and the LULD closing cross. In addition, the Commission believes that the proposed methodology, including the proposed definitions of eligible interest and imbalance and the proposed treatment of IO orders, are reasonably designed to reflect market conditions leading up to the LULD closing cross, including that there is no continuous trading in the security and no Nasdaq best bid and offer based on continuous trading in the security leading up to the cross, and the existence of any buy or sell imbalance in the security leading up to the cross.
Further, the Commission believes that the proposal to eliminate extensions of the LULD closing cross past 4:00 p.m. would provide more certainty regarding the timing of the LULD closing cross and align that timing with the regular Nasdaq closing cross. The Commission also believes that the proposed timing for entering, modifying, and cancelling MOC, LOC, and IO orders for the LULD closing cross would allow additional interest to participate in the cross and further align the LULD closing cross process with the regular Nasdaq closing cross process with respect to these orders.
Finally, the Commission believes that the proposal to specify the dissemination of EOII would provide transparency regarding the information that is disseminated in advance of the LULD closing cross.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No. 1 in the
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 the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges (“Fee Schedule”) to replace the monthly rebate tied to the performance in the opening and closing auctions in NYSE Arca-listed Securities and the ETF Incentive Program for NYSE Arca-listed Securities with a new pricing incentive for Lead Market Makers and ETP Holders registered as Market Makers. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective May 14, 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 the Fee Schedule to replace the monthly rebate tied to the performance in the opening and closing auctions in NYSE Arca-listed Securities and the ETF Incentive Program for NYSE Arca-listed Securities
The Exchange notes that its listing business operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants, including issuers of securities, LMMs, and other liquidity providers, can readily transfer their listings, or direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels, liquidity provision incentive programs, or other factors at a particular venue to be insufficient or excessive. The proposed rule change reflects the current competitive pricing environment and is designed to incentivize market participants to participate as LMMs or Market Makers, and thereby, further enhance the market quality on all securities listed on the Exchange and encourage issuers to list new products on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective May 14, 2021.
As noted above, 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 Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues to which a firm routes order flow. With respect to non-marketable order flow that would provide liquidity on an Exchange against which market makers can quote, ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently operating registered exchanges to route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain exchange transaction fees that relate to orders that would provide liquidity on an exchange.
With this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to reorganize certain existing fees and credits and introduce new pricing that is tied to market quality metrics provided by LMMs and Market Makers on an ETP basis. In doing so, the Exchange proposes four new sections that would be applicable to LMM Transaction Fees and Credits. The proposed four sections, discussed below, would be:
• Section I. Definitions for purposes of LMM Transaction Fees and Credits
• Section II. LMM Base Fees and Credits per Share
• Section III. LMM Performance Metrics-based Incremental Base Credit Adjustments
• Section IV. Additional Tape B Credits for LMMs and Market Makers
In connection with the proposed rule change, the Exchange would add new Section I titled “Definitions for purposes of LMM Transaction Fees and Credits” that would set forth the following nine definitions:
1. “CADV” would mean the consolidated average daily volume in a security in the prior month.
2. “ETP” would mean Exchange Traded Products listed on NYSE Arca.
3. “ETP Price” would mean the average Official Closing Price
4. “Less Active ETPs” would mean ETPs that have a CADV in the prior calendar quarter that is the greater of either less than 100,000 shares or less than 0.013% of Consolidated Tape B ADV.
5. “Leveraged ETP” would mean an ETP that tracks an underlying index by a ratio other than on a one-to-one basis.
6. “Maximum LMM Spread” would mean time-weighted average LMM spread (LMM Offer minus LMM Bid) divided by the average of the LMM Bid and LMM Offer, in basis points.
7. “Minimum LMM Shares within 1% of NBBO” would mean the average number of LMM shares quoted throughout the trading day that are within 1% of the National Best Bid and Best Offer divided by two.
8. “Minimum LMM Shares at the Core Open Auction within 1.5% of the Auction Reference Price” would mean the average of LMM buy shares and LMM sell shares for Limit Orders quoted within 1.5% of the Auction Reference Price
9. “Minimum LMM Shares at the Closing Auction within 1% of the NBBO” would mean the average number of LMM buy shares and LMM sell shares for Limit Orders quoted within 1% of the National Best Bid and Best Offer before the end of Core Trading Hours
The Exchange proposes these definitions to use consistent terms throughout this section of the Fee Schedule relating to LMMs.
The Exchange proposes to add new Section II titled “LMM Base Fees and Credits per Share.” The Exchange notes that the fees and credits in proposed Section II are current fees and credits. The Exchange proposes a non-substantive change to reorganize these current fees and credits in a table format without any change to the level of the fees and credits.
Specifically, the Exchange currently charges LMMs a base fee of $0.0029 per share for orders that remove liquidity and provides the following base credits:
• $0.0033 per share for orders that provide liquidity in securities for which the LMM is registered as the LMM and which have a CADV in the previous month greater than 3,000,000 shares;
• $0.0040 per share for orders that provide liquidity in securities for which the LMM is registered as the LMM and which have a CADV in the previous month of between 1,000,000 and 3,000,000 shares; and
• $0.0045 per share for orders that provide liquidity in securities for which the LMM is registered as the LMM and which have a CADV in the previous month of less than 1,000,000 shares.
Additionally, LMMs are provided a credit of $0.0030 per share for orders that provide undisplayed liquidity in Arca Only Orders
The Exchange proposes to reorganize the presentation of the Fee Schedule in order to enhance its clarity and transparency, thereby making the Fee Schedule easier to navigate. With respect the current LMM fees and credits discussed above, the Exchange proposes a horizontal presentation in a table rather than the current vertical presentation. The proposed changes described above would be included in the new presentation under proposed
The Exchange proposes to adopt market quality metrics that LMMs would be required to meet to qualify for incremental credits. Proposed Section III titled “LMM Performance Metrics-based Incremental Base Credit Adjustments” would provide a table of Performance Metrics that LMMs would be required to meet to qualify for certain incremental credits. LMMs that meet the Performance Metrics would be entitled to enhanced credits based on the quality of the market provided by an LMM in an ETP assigned to the LMM.
The Exchange proposes to adopt the following four Performance Metrics that LMMs would be measured by:
1. Maximum LMM Spread. Maximum LMM Spread means time-weighted average LMM spread (LMM Offer minus LMM Bid) divided by the average of the LMM Bid and LMM Offer, in basis points;
2. Minimum LMM Shares within 1% of NBBO. Minimum LMM Shares within 1% of NBBO means the average number of LMM shares quoted throughout the trading day that are within 1% of the National Best Bid and Best Offer divided by two;
3. Minimum LMM Shares in Core Open Auction within 1.5% of Auction Reference Price. Minimum LMM Shares at the Core Open Auction within 1.5% of the Auction Reference Price means the average of LMM buy shares and LMM sell shares for Limit Orders quoted within 1.5% of the Auction Reference Price divided by two; and
4. Minimum LMM Shares at the Closing Auction within 1% of the NBBO. Minimum LMM Shares at the Closing Auction within 1% of the NBBO means the average number of LMM buy shares and LMM sell shares for Limit Orders quoted within 1% of the National Best Bid and Best Offer before the end of Core Trading Hours divided by two.
As proposed, each ETP would be grouped based on its prior month CADV and its price. An LMM would be considered to have met a Performance Metric in an ETP assigned to the LMM in a billing month if it meets the following:
Under the proposal, the base credit earned by an LMM for Adding Displayed Liquidity (as provided in Section II above) in an assigned ETP would be adjusted based on the number of Performance Metrics met by the LMM in the billing month for each assigned ETP, as follows:
The Performance Metrics illustrated above would apply to all ETPs, including Leveraged ETPs. However, for Leveraged ETPs, there would be no adjustment to the base credit payable to the LMM if the LMM meets 1 or 2 Performance Metrics or if the LMM does not meet any Performance Metrics. LMMs that are registered as the LMM in a Leveraged ETF would be able to earn an incremental credit of $0.00005 per share if the LMM meets 3 of the 4 Performance Metrics, or earn an incremental credit of $0.0001 per share
The following example illustrates how a LMM can earn an incremental credit by meeting the Performance Metrics. Assume an LMM is registered in an ETP that has a CADV of 500,000 shares and a price of $30, both in the prior month. That LMM would currently be eligible for a base credit for adding of $0.0045 per share.
Assume in the billing month, the LMM in this ETP had a Spread of 30 bps, Depth of 3,000 shares, Open Depth of 4,500 shares, and Closing Depth of 5,000 shares. The LMM in this example met 3 of the 4 Performance Metrics (Spread, Open Depth, and Closing Depth) but did not meet Depth. As a result, the LMM has qualified to earn an incremental credit of $0.00005 per share, for a combined credit per share of $0.00455.
The following example illustrates how a LMM registered as a LMM in a Leveraged ETP can earn an incremental credit. Assume the same LMM as in the example above was registered in a second ETP that is a Leveraged ETP that also has a CADV of 500,000 shares and a price of $30, both in the prior month. The LMM would currently be eligible for a base credit for adding of $0.0045 per share. In this example, the profile of the Leveraged ETP is the same as in the non-Leveraged ETP in the example above.
Assume in the billing month, the LMM in the Leveraged ETP had a Spread of 25 bps, Depth of 3,000 shares, Open Depth of 2,000 shares, and Closing Depth of 2,500 shares. The LMM in this example has met just 1 of the 4 Performance Metrics and therefore, would not earn any incremental credit. Since the credit payable to a LMM in a Leveraged ETP would not be adjusted if the LMM meets only 1 or 2 Metrics, or does not meet any Performance Metrics, the LMM in this example would continue to receive the base credit of $0.0045 per share. If the LMM had met at least 3 of the 4 Performance Metrics in the Leveraged ETP, the LMM would have qualified for an incremental credit of $0.00005 per share, for a combined credit of $0.00455 per share. And if the LMM had met all 4 Performance Metrics in the Leveraged ETP, the LMM would have qualified for an incremental credit of $0.0001 per share, for a combined credit of $0.0046 per share.
The Exchange proposes to add new Section IV titled “Additional Tape B Credits for LMMs and Market Makers.” The Exchange notes that the additional credits in proposed Section IV for LMMs are current; the Exchange is not proposing any new additional credits for LMMs under Section IV with this proposed rule change.
As more fully described below, the Exchange proposes a non-substantive change to reorganize the presentation of the credits under proposed Section IV. The Exchange also proposes two changes with respect to the Section IV credits. First, the Exchange proposes that to qualify for the additional credits available under Section IV, LMMs would be required to meet at least two Performance Metrics per Less Active ETP assigned to the LMM. Second, the Exchange proposes to make additional credits available to Market Makers who meet the specified Performance Metrics.
The Exchange currently provides LMMs, and ETP Holders affiliated with such LMM, incremental credits for orders in Tape B Securities that provide displayed liquidity in securities for which they are registered as the LMM and in securities for which they are not registered as an LMM based on the number of securities that have a CADV in the prior calendar quarter of less than 100,000 shares, or 0.013% of Consolidated Tape B ADV, whichever is greater (“Less Active ETPs”).
These additional credits are as follows:
• An additional credit of $0.0004 per share if an LMM is registered as the LMM in at least 400 Less Active ETPs or at least 300 Less Active ETPs if the LMM and ETP Holders and Market Makers affiliated with such LMM add liquidity in all securities of at least 1.00% of US CADV. This credit would appear in the proposed Less Active table under proposed Section IV as Tier 1 without any substantive change to the amount of the credit.
• An additional credit of $0.0003 per share if an LMM is registered as the LMM in at least 200 but less than 400 Less Active ETPs or in at least 200 but less than 300 Less Active ETPs if the LMM and ETP Holders and Market Makers affiliated with such LMM add liquidity in all securities of at least 1.00% of US CADV. This credit would appear in the proposed Less Active table under proposed Section IV as Tier 2 without any substantive change to the amount of the credit.
• An additional credit of $0.0002 per share if an LMM is registered as the LMM in at least 100 but less than 200 Less Active ETPs. This credit would appear in the proposed Less Active table under proposed Section IV as Tier 3 without any substantive change to the amount of the credit.
• An additional credit of $0.0001 per share if an LMM is registered as the LMM in at least 75 but less than 100 Less Active ETPs. This credit would appear in the proposed Less Active table under proposed Section IV as Tier 4 without any substantive change to the amount of the credit.
• An additional credit of $0.00005 per share if an LMM is registered as the LMM in at least 50 but less than 75 Less Active ETPs. This credit would appear in the proposed Less Active table under proposed Section IV as Tier 5 without any substantive change to the amount of the credit.
As noted above, the Exchange proposes to reorganize the presentation of the incremental credits described above in a table rather than the current vertical presentation in order to enhance its clarity and transparency.
As noted above, the Exchange currently provides tier-based incremental credits to LMMs and to ETP Holders affiliated with the LMM that provide displayed liquidity in Tape B securities. A LMM can earn anywhere between $0.00005 per share to $0.0004 per share of incremental credits depending on the number of Less Active ETP Securities in which an LMM is registered as the LMM.
As proposed, LMMs would be able to earn an additional credit on all Tape B Securities if the LMM meets at least two Performance Metrics in each of the Less
The number of Less Active ETPs for a billing month would be calculated as the average number of Less Active ETPs in which an LMM is registered on the first and last business day of the previous month.
To determine which Less Active ETP Tier would apply to an LMM, the Exchange would count the number of Less Active ETPs assigned to that LMM, as follows:
Each Less Active ETP in which an LMM is registered and meets at least two Performance Metrics would count as one Less Active ETP. Each Less Active ETP that is a Leveraged ETP in which an LMM is registered would count as one Less Active ETP regardless of the number of Performance Metrics met.
The Exchange also proposes that Market Makers would be eligible to earn this additional credit on all Tape B securities if:
• The Market Maker notifies the Exchange on or before the first trading day that the additional credit is available in a calendar month of which new Less Active ETPs for which the Marker Maker is registered that it would be seeking to count towards or remove from qualifying for this additional credit in that month.
• The Market Maker cannot also be the registered LMM in a Less Active ETP that it is seeking to count to qualify for the additional credit as a Market Maker.
• Every two Less Active ETPs that a Market Maker identifies and meets at least two Performance Metrics will count as one Less Active ETP for purposes of determining the applicable additional credit.
• If an ETP Holder is both an LMM and a Market Maker in Less Active ETPs and has notified the Exchange of Less Active ETPs that it seeking to count for the additional credit as a Market Maker, the number of Less Active ETPs calculated for the Market Maker above will be combined with the number of Less Active ETPs in which the LMM is registered.
The Exchange believes that offering this incentive program to Market Makers would promote the additional display of liquidity in Less Active ETPs that list and trade on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that Market Makers would need to meet Performance Metrics in more Less Active ETPs than the assigned LMMs in order to achieve the same level of additional credit.
The changes described above would be included under proposed new Section IV and would appear as follows on the Fee Schedule:
The following example illustrates the applicability of the expanded eligibility of additional Tape B credits to LMMs and Market Makers that meet a certain number of Performance Metrics.
Assume a LMM is registered in 120 Less Active ETPs. Currently, that LMM would qualify for an additional credit of $0.0002 per share for adding liquidity in all Tape B Securities under the Less Active ETP Tier 3 in the table above. Assume further that of those 120 Less Active ETPs, the LMM meets at least two Performance Metrics in 90 of those Less Active ETPs, and does not meet at least two Performance Metric in the other 30 Less Active ETPs. The LMM in this example would qualify for Less Active ETP Tier 4 and would receive an incremental credit of $0.0001 per share for adding liquidity on all Tape B Securities. If the LMM in this example seeks to qualify as a Market Maker in another 50 Less Active ETPs, and as a Market Maker, the LMM meets at least two Performance Metrics in 40 of its non-registered Less Active ETPs, then those 40 Less Active ETPs would count as 20 Less Active ETPs for a combined total number of Less Active ETPs of 110 Less Active ETPs (90 Less Active ETPs as LMM + 20 Less Active ETPs as Market Maker). The LMM would then qualify for Less Active ETP Tier 3 and would receive an incremental credit of $0.0002 per share for adding liquidity on all Tape B Securities.
The following example illustrates how a Market Maker that is not an LMM can receive the incremental credits. Assume a Market Maker notifies the Exchange that it is seeking to qualify in 180 Less Active ETPs. Assume further that the Market Maker meets at least 2 Performance Metrics in 160 Less Active ETPs, and does not meet at least 2 Performance Metrics in the other 20 Less Active ETPs, for a total of 80 Less Active ETPs since every two Less Active ETPs that a Market Maker identifies and meets at least two Performance Metrics count as one Less Active ETP for purposes of determining which Less Active ETP tier applies to the Market Maker. The Market Maker in this example would qualify under Less Active Tier 4 for an incremental credit of $0.0001 per share for adding liquidity in all Tape B securities.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would enhance market quality on all NYSE Arca-listed Securities by incentivizing LMMs and Market Makers to meet the Performance Metrics across all Less Active ETPs, which would support the quality of price discovery in such securities on the Exchange and provide additional liquidity for incoming orders for the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that providing increased credits to LMMs and ETP Holders that are affiliated with a LMM that add liquidity in Tape B Securities to the Exchange could lead to more LMMs to register to quote and trade in Less Active ETP Securities. The Exchange believes the proposed financial incentives could also encourage competition in Tape B Securities quoted and traded on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not know how much order flow LMMs and Market Makers choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. The proposed credits in NYSE Arca-listed Securities would be available to all LMMs and Market Makers that are registered in those securities and are subject to the obligations specified in Rule 7.23-E relating to Market Makers. There are currently seven LMMs that
The proposed rule change is also intended to incentivize LMMs to increase auction liquidity in less liquid NYSE Arca-listed Securities to support price discovery in the Exchange's opening and closing auctions for the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change could lead to more LMMs to register in less liquid securities and encourage greater participation in the opening and closing auctions on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would also to provide superior market quality and price discovery for NYSE Arca-listed Securities, specifically securities that are less active, through a quoting size requirement that would promote liquidity in the opening and closing auction in such securities. The proposed rule change is intended to provide a more meaningful incentive to both LMMs and ETP Holders to provide liquidity in less active securities by providing financial incentives to the Exchange's members as long as they meet certain prescribed quoting criteria. The Exchange believes that a performance-driven incentive would encourage such members to provide meaningful quotes and size in less active securities listed and traded on the Exchange.
Additionally, for newly listed and low volume ETPs, the cost to a firm for making a market, such as holding inventory in the security, is often not fully offset by the revenue through rebates provided by the Exchange. In some cases, firms may even operate at a loss in new and low volume ETPs. The Exchange believes the proposed credits, which would compensate members as long as they meet the prescribed performance metrics, is a more deterministic program from a member's perspective. The member would decide how many, if any, low volume securities it wants to provide tight and deep markets in. The more securities the member provides heightened quoting in, the more the member could collect in the form of a rebate.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any 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 believes that the proposal to adopt market quality-based incentives is a reasonable means to incentivize liquidity provision in ETPs listed on the Exchange. The marketplace for listings is extremely competitive and the Exchange is not the only venue for listing ETPs. Competition in ETPs is further exacerbated by the fact that listings can and do transfer from one listing market to another. The proposed rule change is intended to help the Exchange compete as a listing venue for ETPs. Further, the Exchange notes that the proposed incentives are not transaction fees, nor are they fees paid by participants to access the Exchange. Rather, the proposed rebates are based on achieving certain objective market quality metrics. The Exchange believes providing rebates that are based on the quality of the market in individual ETPs that generally have low volume will allow ETP Holders to anticipate their revenue and will incentivize them to provide tight and deep markets in those securities.
Given the novelty of the proposed rule change, the Exchange cannot be certain that LMMs and Market Makers will choose to actively compete for these incentives. For LMMs and Market Makers that do choose to actively participate by providing deep and tight markets in Less Active ETP Securities, the Exchange expects those members to receive payments comparable to what they currently receive, with the potential for additional upside when they meet the Performance Metrics in a greater number of less active securities. The Exchange believes the proposed credits, which would compensate LMMs and Market Makers as long as they meet the prescribed Performance Metrics, is also reasonable because it is a more deterministic program from an ETP Holder's perspective.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is intended to encourage LMMs and Market Makers to promote price discovery and market quality in Less Active ETP Securities for the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is reasonable and appropriate in that the credits are based on the amount of business transacted on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the proposed incremental credits offered by the Exchange is similar to market quality incentive programs already in place on other markets, such as the Designated Liquidity Provider incentives on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), which requires a member on that exchange to provide meaningful and consistent support to market quality and price discovery in low volume exchange-traded products by quoting at the National Best Bid and Offer and adding liquidity in a minimum number of such securities. In return, Nasdaq provides the member with an incremental rebate.
The Exchange believes that providing additional credits to Market Makers that add liquidity in Less Active ETPs is reasonable because the Exchange believes that by providing such additional credits, more Market Makers would choose to register in Less Active ETP Securities on the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would benefit all market participants. As noted above, because Market Makers registered in a security must meet the quoting obligations specified in Rule 7.23-E, expanding eligibility to Market Makers to receive credits is a reasonable attempt to increase participation on the Exchange and provide an incentive for Market Makers to meet additional standards for their registered Less Active ETPs.
Submission of additional liquidity to the Exchange would promote price discovery and transparency and enhance order execution opportunities for LMMs and Market Makers from the substantial amounts of liquidity present on the Exchange. All participants would benefit from the greater amounts of liquidity that will be present on the Exchange, which would provide greater execution opportunities.
The Exchange believes that eliminating the existing monthly rebate tied to the performance in the opening and closing auctions in NYSE Arca-listed Securities and the ETF Incentive Program for NYSE Arca-listed Securities is reasonable because those pricing incentives did not the achieve their intended purpose of incentivizing LMMs and ETP Holders to send a greater number of their orders in Tape B Securities to the Exchange. The Exchange believes replacing the monthly rebate program and the ETF Incentive Program with pricing incentives tied to Performance Metrics discussed above will allow the Exchange to better maintain its competitive standing. On the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the Exchange currently operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt to increase liquidity on the Exchange and improve the Exchange's market share relative to its competitors.
Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed non-substantive changes to relocate existing fees and credits into a table format is reasonable and would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased clarity and transparency of the Fee Schedule, thereby reducing potential confusion.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is equitable because the proposal would provide discounts that are reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes in Less Active ETP Securities. The Exchange further believes that the proposed incremental rebate is equitable because it is consistent with the market quality and competitive benefits associated with the fee program and because the magnitude of the additional rebate is not unreasonably high in comparison to the rebate paid with respect to other displayed liquidity-providing orders. The Exchange believes that it is equitable to offer increased rebates to LMMs and Market Makers as both are currently subject to obligations specified in Rule 7.23-E, which are not applicable to non-Market Maker ETP Holders, and they would be subject to additional requirements and obligations (such as meeting Performance Metrics) that other market participants are not.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to offer rebates tied to market quality metrics represents an equitable allocation of payments because LMMs and Market Makers would be required to not only meet their Rule 7.23-E obligations, but also meet prescribed quoting requirements in order to qualify for the payments, as described above. Where an LMM or Market Maker does not meet at least two Performance Metrics, that member will not receive any additional financial benefit. Further, all LMMs and Market Makers on the Exchange are eligible to participate and could do so by simply registering in a Less Active ETP and meeting the proposed market quality metrics. The Exchange has designed the proposed pricing incentives to be sustainable over the long-term and generally expects that payments made to LMMs and Market Makers will be comparable to payments the Exchange currently makes to its members and comparable to pricing incentives offered by the Exchange's competitors. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of dues, fees and credits.
The Exchange believes that eliminating the existing monthly rebate tied to the performance in the opening and closing auctions in NYSE Arca-listed Securities and the ETF Incentive Program for NYSE Arca-listed Securities is equitable because the Exchange is eliminating those pricing incentives for all participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, LMMs and Market Makers are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value.
The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to adopt incremental credits applicable to LMMs and Market Makers because both are already subject to additional obligations, as specified in Rule 7.23-E, and the proposed additional credits would be provided on an equal basis to all similarly situated participant provided each such participant meets the prescribed market quality metrics. If an LMM or Market Maker does not meet the required number of Performance Metrics, the member would not receive any incremental credit. Further, the Exchange believes the incremental credit would incentivize each of these participants to register in Less Active ETPs and send more orders to the Exchange to qualify for higher credits. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher volume.
The proposal to offer an additional credit tied to meeting certain market quality requirements neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category of market participant. The proposal does not permit unfair discrimination because LMMs and Market Makers already have increased obligations vis-à-vis non-Market Maker ETP Holders, as specified in Rule 7.23-E, and the proposed requirements would be applied to all similarly-situated LMMs and Market Maker equally. In addition, the proposed incentives for LMMs replace the existing incentive structure, which is already available only for LMMs. The Exchange does not believe it would be unfairly discriminatory to extend the availability of additional credits for
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory because all LMMs and Market Makers that choose to qualify for the incremental credits would be required to meet a minimum number of Performance Metrics in order to receive the credits. Where a participant does not achieve a certain number of Performance Metrics, it will not receive any incremental credits. Further, all LMMs and Market Makers on the Exchange are eligible to participate in the program and could do so by simply registering in Less Active ETPs and meeting a minimum number of Performance Metrics. The Exchange has designed the pricing incentives proposed herein to be sustainable over the long-term and generally expects that payments made to LMMs and Market Makers would be comparable to payments the Exchange currently makes to its LMMs and comparable to pricing incentives offered by the Exchange's competitors. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange believes that eliminating the existing monthly rebate tied to the performance in the opening and closing auctions in NYSE Arca-listed Securities and the ETF Incentive Program for NYSE Arca-listed Securities is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is eliminating both pricing incentives for all participants.
Finally, subject to their obligations specified in Rule 7.23-E, the submission of additional orders to the Exchange is optional for LMMs and Market Makers in that they could choose the level of trading activity on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the 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.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) requests public comment on Waste Management, Inc.'s (Waste Management) application for an exemption to allow all of its 106 operating companies to replace the high-mounted brake lights on their owned and operated fleets of heavy-duty refuse and support trucks with red or amber brake-activated pulsating lamps positioned in the upper center position, or in an upper dual outboard position, in addition to the steady burning brake lamps required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2021.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2021-0059 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-0676,
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2021-0059), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comments online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The FMCSRs require all exterior lamps (both required lamps and any additional lamps) to be steady-burning, except for turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, school bus warning lamps, amber warning lamps or flashing warning lamps on tow trucks and commercial motor vehicles transporting oversized loads, and warning lamps on emergency and service vehicles authorized by State or local authorities. Waste Management has applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) to allow all of its 106 operating companies to replace the rear high-mounted brake lights with red or amber brake-activated pulsating lamps positioned in the upper center position, or in an upper dual outboard position, in addition to the steady burning brake lamps required by the FMCSRs. A copy of the exemption application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on Waste Management's application for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e). All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 67 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirements in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7363, Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7918, Docket No. FMCSA-2001-9258, Docket No. FMCSA-2002-12844, Docket No. FMCSA-2002-13411, Docket No. FMCSA-2003-14504, Docket No. FMCSA-2004-18885, Docket No. FMCSA-2006-25246, Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27515, Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27897, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0106, Docket No.
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2007-27515; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0057; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2012-0278; FMCSA-2012-0279; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2012-0339; FMCSA-2013-0024; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0301; FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2015-0048; FMCSA-2015-0052; FMCSA-2016-0029; FMCSA-2016-0207; FMCSA-2016-0209; FMCSA-2016-0213; FMCSA-2016-0214; FMCSA-2016-0377; FMCSA-2017-0014; FMCSA-2017-0017; FMCSA-2017-0018; FMCSA-2018-0006; FMCSA-2018-0013; FMCSA-2018-0017; FMCSA-2018-0018; FMCSA-2019-0004; FMCSA-2019-0008; FMCSA-2019-0009), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
The 67 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the vision standard in § 391.41(b)(10), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 67 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision standard (see 65 FR 45817, 65 FR 66286, 65 FR 77066, 66 FR 13825, 66 FR 17743, 66 FR 33990, 67 FR 68719, 67 FR 71610, 67 FR 76439, 68 FR 2629, 68 FR 10298, 68 FR 10300, 68 FR 19598, 68 FR 33570, 68 FR 35772, 69 FR 53493, 69 FR 62742, 69 FR 64810, 69 FR 71100, 70 FR 7545, 70 FR 7546, 70 FR 25878, 70 FR 33937, 71 FR 62148, 71 FR 66217, 72 FR 180, 72 FR 1054, 72 FR 7111, 72 FR 7812, 72 FR 9397, 72 FR 21313, 72 FR 28093, 72 FR 32703, 72 FR 32705, 72 FR 39879, 72 FR 52419, 73 FR 35194, 73 FR 51689, 73 FR 61922, 73 FR 61925, 73 FR 63047, 73 FR 63047, 73 FR 74565, 73 FR 75803, 74 FR 980, 74 FR 6209, 74 FR 6211, 74 FR 6212, 74 FR 6689, 74 FR 7097, 74 FR 15584, 74 FR 19267, 74 FR 20253, 74 FR 23472, 74 FR 26464, 74 FR 28094, 74 FR 41971, 75 FR 1835, 75 FR 9482, 75 FR 54958, 75 FR 59327, 75 FR 64396, 75 FR 64396, 75 FR 70078, 75 FR 72863, 75 FR 77949, 76 FR 2190, 76 FR 4413, 76 FR 4414, 76 FR 9859, 76 FR 9861, 76 FR 9865, 76 FR 17481, 76 FR 18824, 76 FR 21796, 76 FR 25766, 76 FR 28125, 76 FR 29022, 76 FR 29024, 76 FR 29026, 76 FR 32016, 76 FR 32017, 76 FR 34135, 76 FR 37885, 76 FR 44082, 76 FR 54530, 77 FR 10606, 77 FR 59248, 77 FR 60008, 77 FR 64582, 77 FR 64583, 77 FR 68200, 77 FR 68202, 77 FR 70534, 77 FR 71669, 77 FR 71671, 77 FR 74273, 77 FR 74731, 78 FR 798, 78 FR 1919, 78 FR 8689, 78 FR 9772, 78 FR 10250, 78 FR 11731, 78 FR 12811, 78 FR 12817, 78 FR 12822, 78 FR 16912, 78 FR 22596, 78 FR 24300, 78 FR 24798, 78 FR 29431, 78 FR 30954, 78 FR 32703, 78 FR 32708, 78 FR 34140, 78 FR 37270, 78 FR 46407, 78 FR 51268, 78 FR 78477, 79 FR 14328, 79 FR 18392, 79 FR 24298, 79 FR 29498, 79 FR 56104, 79 FR 56117, 79 FR 59357, 79 FR 65759, 79 FR 73686, 79 FR 73687, 80 FR 603, 80 FR 2473, 80 FR 3308, 80 FR 3723, 80 FR 5615, 80 FR 6162, 80 FR 7678, 80 FR 7679, 80 FR 8751, 80 FR 14223, 80 FR 15859, 80 FR 16502, 80 FR 18693, 80 FR 18696, 80 FR 20558, 80 FR 20559, 80 FR 20562, 80 FR 25766, 80 FR 25768, 80 FR 26139, 80 FR 29154, 80 FR 31635, 80 FR 31640, 80 FR 33009, 80 FR 33011, 80 FR 35699, 80 FR 36395, 80 FR 36398, 80 FR 48404, 80 FR 48409, 81 FR 20433, 81 FR 42054, 81 FR 66722, 81 FR 70248, 81 FR 70251, 81 FR 71173, 81 FR 80161, 81 FR 90046, 81 FR 96165, 81 FR 96178, 81 FR 96180, 82 FR 12678, 82 FR 13043, 82 FR 13045, 82 FR 13048, 82 FR 13187, 82 FR 15277, 82 FR 17736, 82 FR 18949, 82 FR 18956, 82 FR 20962, 82 FR 22379, 82 FR 23712, 82 FR 24430, 82 FR 26224, 82 FR 33542, 82 FR 35050, 82 FR 37499, 83 FR 6694, 83 FR 24571, 83 FR 28325, 83 FR 28335, 83 FR 34661, 83 FR 40648, 83 FR 45750, 83 FR 53724, 83 FR 53727, 83 FR 56137, 83 FR 56902, 84 FR 2311, 84 FR
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of July and are discussed below. As of July 22, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 65 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (65 FR 45817, 65 FR 66286, 65 FR 77066, 66 FR 13825, 66 FR 17743, 66 FR 33990, 67 FR 68719, 67 FR 71610, 67 FR 76439, 68 FR 2629, 68 FR 10298, 68 FR 10300, 68 FR 19598, 68 FR 33570, 68 FR 35772, 69 FR 53493, 69 FR 62742, 69 FR 64810, 69 FR 71100, 70 FR 7545, 70 FR 7546, 70 FR 25878, 70 FR 33937, 71 FR 62148, 71 FR 66217, 72 FR 180, 72 FR 1054, 72 FR 7111, 72 FR 7812, 72 FR 9397, 72 FR 21313, 72 FR 28093, 72 FR 32703, 72 FR 32705, 72 FR 39879, 72 FR 52419, 73 FR 35194, 73 FR 51689, 73 FR 61922, 73 FR 61925, 73 FR 63047, 73 FR 63047, 73 FR 74565, 73 FR 75803, 74 FR 980, 74 FR 6209, 74 FR 6211, 74 FR 6212, 74 FR 6689, 74 FR 7097, 74 FR 15584, 74 FR 19267, 74 FR 20253, 74 FR 23472, 74 FR 26464, 74 FR 28094, 74 FR 41971, 75 FR 1835, 75 FR 9482, 75 FR 54958, 75 FR 59327, 75 FR 64396, 75 FR 64396, 75 FR 70078, 75 FR 72863, 75 FR 77949, 76 FR 2190, 76 FR 4413, 76 FR 4414, 76 FR 9859, 76 FR 9861, 76 FR 9865, 76 FR 17481, 76 FR 18824, 76 FR 21796, 76 FR 25766, 76 FR 28125, 76 FR 29022, 76 FR 29024, 76 FR 29026, 76 FR 32016, 76 FR 32017, 76 FR 34135, 76 FR 37885, 76 FR 44082, 76 FR 54530, 77 FR 10606, 77 FR 59248, 77 FR 60008, 77 FR 64582, 77 FR 64583, 77 FR 68200, 77 FR 68202, 77 FR 70534, 77 FR 71669, 77 FR 71671, 77 FR 74273, 77 FR 74731, 78 FR 798, 78 FR 1919, 78 FR 8689, 78 FR 9772, 78 FR 10250, 78 FR 11731, 78 FR 12811, 78 FR 12817, 78 FR 12822, 78 FR 16912, 78 FR 22596, 78 FR 24300, 78 FR 29431, 78 FR 30954, 78 FR 32703, 78 FR 32708, 78 FR 34140, 78 FR 37270, 78 FR 51268, 78 FR 78477, 79 FR 14328, 79 FR 18392, 79 FR 24298, 79 FR 29498, 79 FR 56104, 79 FR 56117, 79 FR 59357, 79 FR 65759, 79 FR 73686, 79 FR 73687, 80 FR 603, 80 FR 2473, 80 FR 3308, 80 FR 3723, 80 FR 6162, 80 FR 767, 80 FR 5615, 80 FR 7679, 80 FR 8751, 80 FR 14223, 80 FR 15859, 80 FR 16502, 80 FR 18693, 80 FR 18696, 80 FR 20558, 80 FR 20559, 80 FR 20562, 80 FR 25766, 80 FR 25768, 80 FR 26139, 80 FR 29154, 80 FR 31635, 80 FR 31640, 80 FR 33009, 80 FR 33011, 80 FR 36398, 80 FR 48409, 81 FR 20433, 81 FR 42054, 81 FR 66722, 81 FR 70248, 81 FR 70251, 81 FR 71173, 81 FR 80161, 81 FR 90046, 81 FR 96165, 81 FR 96178, 81 FR 96180, 82 FR 12678, 82 FR 13043, 82 FR 13045, 82 FR 13048, 82 FR 13187, 82 FR 15277, 82 FR 17736, 82 FR 18949, 82 FR 18956, 82 FR 20962, 82 FR 22379, 82 FR 23712, 82 FR 24430, 82 FR 26224, 82 FR 33542, 82 FR 35050, 82 FR 37499, 83 FR 6694, 83 FR 24571, 83 FR 28325, 83 FR 28335, 83 FR 34661, 83 FR 40648, 83 FR 45750, 83 FR 53724, 83 FR 53727, 83 FR 56137, 83 FR 56902, 84 FR 2311, 84 FR 2314, 84 FR 2326, 84 FR 2328, 84 FR 5550, 84 FR 12665, 84 FR 16320, 84 FR 16327, 84 FR 16333, 84 FR 21397, 84 FR 21401, 84 FR 23629, 84 FR 27688, 84 FR 47047, 84 FR 47057):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2000-7363, FMCSA-2000-7918, FMCSA-2001-9258, FMCSA-2002-12844, FMCSA-2002-13411, FMCSA-2003-14504, FMCSA-2004-18885, FMCSA-2006-25246, FMCSA-2007-27515, FMCSA-2007-27897, FMCSA-2008-0106, FMCSA-2008-0266, FMCSA-2008-0292, FMCSA-2008-0340, FMCSA-2008-0398, FMCSA-2009-0086, FMCSA-2009-0321, FMCSA-2010-0201, FMCSA-2010-0354, FMCSA-2011-0024, FMCSA-2011-0057, FMCSA-2011-0092, FMCSA-2011-0102, FMCSA-2012-0278, FMCSA-2012-0279, FMCSA-2012-0337, FMCSA-2012-0338, FMCSA-2012-0339, FMCSA-2013-0024, FMCSA-2014-0004, FMCSA-2014-0300, FMCSA-2014-0301, FMCSA-2014-0304, FMCSA-2015-0048, FMCSA-2016-0029, FMCSA-2016-0207, FMCSA-2016-0209, FMCSA-2016-0213, FMCSA-2016-0214, FMCSA-2016-0377, FMCSA-2017-0014, FMCSA-2017-0017, FMCSA-2017-0018, FMCSA-2018-0006, FMCSA-2018-0013, FMCSA-2018-0017, FMCSA-2018-0018, FMCSA-2019-0004, FMCSA-2019-0008, and FMCSA-2019-0009. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 22, 2021, and will expire on July 22, 2023.
As of July 23, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (80 FR 35699, 80 FR 48404, 82 FR 33542, 84 FR 47057):
The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0052. The exemption is applicable as of July 23, 2021, and will expire on July 23, 2023.
As of July 31, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (78 FR 24798, 78 FR 46407, 80 FR 36395, 82 FR 33542, 84 FR 47057):
The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0027. The exemption is applicable as of July 31, 2021, and will expire on July 31, 2023.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a certified medical examiner (ME), as defined by § 390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under § 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the ME at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification if he/her is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 67 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision requirement in § 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, 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, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning List of Data (A) and List of Data (B).
Written comments should be received on or before August 2, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for additional information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, Room #4006-A, P.O. Box 1328, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests 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 public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before July 6, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of Tribal Consultation Session.
VA, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) will facilitate a tribal consultation regarding VA's Indian Health Service/Tribal Health Program (IHS/THP) Reimbursement Agreements Program. VA is seeking input on adopting a pharmacy reimbursement rate for the lower 48 states.
Comments must be received by VA on or before July 5, 2021.
Comments may be submitted to
Kara Hawthorne, IHS/THP Program Manager, VA Office of Community Care, at
Utilizing the authorities found in 25 U.S.C. 1645(c), Sharing Arrangements with Federal Agencies, and 38 U.S.C. 8153, Sharing of Health-Care Resources, VA, IHS and Tribal health care providers have created the IHS/THP Reimbursement Agreements Program. This program provides a means for IHS and THP health facilities to receive reimbursement from VA for direct care services, including pharmaceutics, provided to eligible American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) Veterans. Currently, reimbursement agreements under this program state that VA will reimburse “actual costs” for pharmaceuticals. In implementing this requirement, VA has realized that this term, “actual costs,” may be ambiguous and has led to difficulties in administering the agreements in compliance with applicable laws. VA is considering replacing the term “actual cost” with a more recognizable and easily calculated rate. Selecting an industry standard pharmaceutical rate structure would benefit IHS/THP sites by making it easier to understand and predict the reimbursement rate by eliminating the need to calculate actual cost.
VA is proposing two distinct pharmacy payment rates for IHS and THP facilities. For IHS facilities, VA has collaborated with IHS to use the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) or other established contract vehicles (
For THP facilities, VA is suggesting using one of two industry-standard pharmacy reimbursement methodologies. These proposed methodologies are: (1) Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) plus dispensing fee and (2) Average Wholesale Price (AWP), minus discount, plus dispensing fee.
This written tribal consultation is seeking input on the preferred pharmacy reimbursement rate from the options above. VA suggests the following questions for response:
(1) For the rates for THP facilities, what is your preferred methodology, WAC plus dispensing fee, or (2) AWP, minus discount, plus dispensing fee.
(2) For the rates for THP facilities, if you identify AWP as the preferred method, what would you propose as the AWP discount percent rate for generic drugs and name brand/specialty drugs? How did you calculate or determine the proposed discount percent rate?
(3) For THP dispensing fee, VA proposes to adopt an amount in line with industry standard, which is generally less than $1.00 per drug, to be applied to either selected rates (WAC or AWP). Do you agree with $1.00 per drug for a dispensing fee? If not, what do you propose the dispensing fee should be? How did you calculate or determine the proposed dispensing fee?
(4) Do you have any comments on pharmacy reimbursement rates for IHS facilities and/or the related claims submission and reimbursement process?
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on May 26, 2021, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Health Administration (VHA), 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 August 2, 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, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA'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.
This information collection includes several forms, as well as a review and appeal process, which are used to administer the Civilian Health And Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA).
a. VA Form 10-10d, Application for CHAMPVA Benefits, is used to determine eligibility of persons applying for healthcare benefits under the CHAMPVA program in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 501 and 1781.
b. VA Form 10-7959a, CHAMPVA Claim Form, is used to adjudicate claims for CHAMPVA benefits in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 501 and 1781, and 10 U.S.C. 1079 and 1086. This information is required for accurate adjudication and processing of beneficiary submitted claims. The claim form is also instrumental in the detection and prosecution of fraud. In addition, the claim form is the only mechanism to obtain, on an interim basis, other health insurance (OHI) information.
c. VA Form 10-7959c, CHAMPVA Other Health Insurance (OHI) Certification, is used to systematically obtain OHI information and to correctly coordinate benefits among all liable parties. Except for Medicaid and health insurance policies that are purchased exclusively for the purpose of supplementing CHAMPVA benefits, CHAMPVA is always the secondary payer of healthcare benefits (38 U.S.C. 501 and 1781, and 10 U.S.C. 1086).
d. VA Form 10-7959d, CHAMPVA Potential Liability Claim, provides basic information from which potential third party liability can be assessed. The Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651-2653) mandates recovery of costs associated with healthcare services related to an injury/illness caused by a third party. Additional authority includes 38 U.S.C. 501; 38 CFR 1.900
e. VA Form 10-7959e, VA Claim for Miscellaneous Expenses, is used to adjudicate claims for certain children of Korea and/or Vietnam veterans authorized under 38 U.S.C., chapter 18, as amended by section 401, Public Law 106-419 and section 102, Public Law 108-183. VA's medical regulations 38 CFR part 17 (17.900 through 17.905) establish regulations regarding provision of health care for certain children of Korea and Vietnam veterans and women Vietnam veterans' children born with spina bifida and certain other covered birth defects. These regulations also specify the information to be included in requests for preauthorization and claims from approved health care providers.
f. Review and Appeal Process pertains to the approval of health care, or approval for payment relating to the provision of health care, under the Veteran Family Member Programs. The provisions of chapter 51 of 38 U.S.C. or 38 CFR 17.276 and 38 CFR 17.904 establish a review process regarding disagreements by an eligible beneficiary of a Veteran Family Member Program, provider, Veteran, or other representative of the Veteran or beneficiary with a determination concerning provision of health care or a health care provider's disagreement with a determination regarding payment. The person or entity requesting reconsideration of such determination is required to submit such a request in writing. If such person or entity remains dissatisfied with the reconsideration determination, the person or entity is permitted to submit a written request for additional review.
g. Clinical Review pertains to the requirement of VHA to preauthorize certain medical services under 38 CFR 17.273 and 38 CFR 17.902. Clinical review determines if services are medically necessary and appropriate to allow under the Veteran Family Member
VA Form 10-10d—8,963 hours.
VA Form 10-7959a—9,167 hours.
VA Form 10-7959c—8,947 hours.
VA Form 10-7959d—239 hours.
VA Form 10-7959e—200 hours.
Review and Appeal Process—6,255 hours.
Clinical Review—777 hours.
VA Form 10-10d—10 minutes.
VA Form 10-7959a—10 minutes.
VA Form 10-7959c—10 minutes.
VA Form 10-7959d—7 minutes.
VA Form 10-7959e—15 minutes.
Review and Appeal Process—30 minutes.
Clinical Review—20 minutes.
VA Form 10-10d—53,775.
VA Form 10-7959a—55,000.
VA Form 10-7959c—53,680.
VA Form 10-7959d—2,045.
VA Form 10-7959e—800.
Review and Appeal Process—12,510.
Clinical Review—2,332.
By direction of the Secretary.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs (OPIA), Office of Tribal Government Relations (OTGR), is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as a member of the Advisory Committee on Tribal and Indian Affairs (“the Committee”).
Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on June 16, 2021.
All nomination packages (Application, should be mailed to the Office of Tribal Government Relations, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 915H (075), Washington, DC 20420 or email us at
Ms. Stephanie Birdwell and David “Clay” Ward, Office of Tribal Government Relations, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Ste 915H (075), Washington, DC 20420, Telephone (202) 461-7400. A copy of the Committee charter can be obtained by contacting Mr. David “Clay” Ward or by accessing the website managed by OTGR at
In carrying out the duties set forth, the Committee responsibilities include, but not limited to: (1) Identify for the Department evolving issues of relevance to Indian tribes, tribal organizations and Native American Veterans relating to programs and services of the Department;
(2) Propose clarifications, recommendations and solutions to address issues raised at tribal, regional and national levels, especially regarding any tribal consultation reports;
(3) Provide a forum for Indian tribes, tribal organizations, urban Indian organizations, Native Hawaiian organizations and the Department to discuss issues and proposals for changes to Department regulations, policies and procedures;
(4) Identify priorities and provide advice on appropriate strategies for tribal consultation and urban Indian organizations conferring on issues at the tribal, regional, or national levels;
(5) Ensure that pertinent issues are brought to the attention of Indian tribes, tribal organizations, urban Indian organizations and Native Hawaiian organizations in a timely manner, so that feedback can be obtained;
(6) Encourage the Secretary to work with other Federal agencies and Congress so that Native American Veterans are not denied the full benefit of their status as both Native Americans and Veterans;
(7) Highlight contributions of Native American Veterans in the Armed Forces;
(8) Make recommendations on the consultation policy of the Department on tribal matters;
(9) Support a process to develop an urban Indian organization confer policy to ensure the Secretary confers, to the maximum extent practicable, with urban Indian organizations; and
(10) With the Secretary's written approval, conduct other duties as recommended by the Committee.
(1) At least one member of each of the 12 service areas of the Indian Health Service is represented in the membership of the Committee nominated by Indian tribes or tribal organization.
(2) At least one member of the Committee represents the Native Hawaiian Veteran community nominated by a Native Hawaiian Organization.
(3) At least one member of the Committee represents urban Indian organizations nominated by a national urban Indian organization.
(4) Not fewer than half of the members are Veterans, unless the Secretary determines that an insufficient number of qualified Veterans were nominated.
(5) No member of the Committee may be an employee of the Federal Government.
In accordance with Public Law 116-315, the Secretary determines the number and terms of service for members of the Committee, which are appointed by the Secretary, except that a term of service of any such member may not exceed a term of two years. Additionally, a member may be reappointed for one additional term at the Secretary's discretion.
(1) Diversity in professional and personal qualifications;
(2) Experience in military service and military deployments (please identify your Branch of Service and Rank);
(3) Current work with Veterans;
(4) Committee subject matter expertise; and
(5) Experience working in large and complex organizations.
Individuals selected for appointment to the Committee shall be invited to serve a two-year term. All members will receive travel expenses and a per diem allowance in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulations for any travel made in connection with their duties as members of the Committee.
The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of its Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the Committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that a broad representation of geographic areas, males & females, racial and ethnic minority groups, and Veterans with disabilities are given consideration for membership. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination because of a person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.
(b) The Commission shall be led by two Co-Chairs, one of whom shall be the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the other of whom shall be the head of an executive department or agency (agency) designated by the President. The Commission shall provide advice to the President, in close coordination with the Deputy Assistant to the President and Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Senior Liaison, on:
(c) The Commission shall consist of 25 members appointed by the President. The Commission shall include members who:
(d) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall designate an Executive Director of the Commission (Executive Director). The Executive Director shall report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the other Co-Chair of the Commission and the Deputy Assistant to the President and Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Senior Liaison.
(e) The Commission shall terminate 2 years from the date of this order, unless sooner renewed by the President.
(b) The Initiative shall advance equity, justice, and opportunity for AA and NHPI communities by coordinating Federal interagency policymaking and program development efforts to eliminate barriers to equity, justice, and opportunity faced by AA and NHPI communities, including by advancing policies, programs, and initiatives. In developing and implementing such policies, programs, and initiatives, the Co-Chairs of the Initiative and the Executive Director shall coordinate closely with the Deputy Assistant to the President and Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Senior Liaison. To support implementation of a whole-of-government approach to equity and racial justice, as established in Executive Order 13985, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall coordinate closely with the Co-Chairs of the Initiative and the Executive Director to ensure that the needs and voices of AA and NHPI communities are considered in the efforts of my Administration to advance equity and civil rights.
In particular, the Initiative shall advance efforts to:
(c) In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Initiative shall consist of senior officials from the following agencies and offices, designated by the heads thereof:
(d) The Department of Health and Human Services shall provide funding and administrative support for the Initiative to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations, and may, as necessary and appropriate under section 1535 of title 31, United States Code, enter into one or more agreements to obtain goods or services from one or more agencies in support of the Initiative.
(e) Each agency in the Initiative shall prepare a plan (agency plan) outlining measurable actions the agency is considering or will take to advance equity, justice, and opportunity for AA and NHPI communities, including plans to implement the policy goals outlined in subsection (b) of this section. Agencies shall report their plans to the Co-Chairs of the Initiative and the Executive Director on a frequency established by the Executive Director. In developing such plans, officials participating in the Initiative shall seek opportunities to engage with employee affinity groups or Federal networks representing AA and NHPI public servants.
(f) The Initiative shall coordinate with and support the existing regional network of Federal officials who facilitate improved communication, engagement, and coordination between the Federal Government and AA and NHPI communities throughout the United States (Regional Network). Agencies identified as participants in the Initiative shall seek opportunities, consistent with applicable law and available resources, to provide support and resources to the Regional Network through each agency's respective regional offices. The Executive Director shall coordinate the efforts of the Regional Network, and may establish regular reporting and information-sharing activities between the Regional Network and the Initiative.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(d) For purposes of this order, references to executive departments and agencies shall not include the agencies described in section 3502(5) of title 44, United States Code. Independent regulatory agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.
(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) proposes to amend the test procedures for general service fluorescent lamps (“GSFLs”), incandescent reflector lamps (“IRLs”), and general service incandescent lamps (“GSILs”) to update to the latest versions of the referenced industry test standards and provide cites to specific sections of these standards; to clarify definitions, test conditions and methods, and measurement procedures; to clarify test frequency and inclusion of cathode power in measurements for GSFLs; to provide a test method for measuring color rendering index (“CRI”) of GSILs and IRLs and for measuring lifetime of IRLs; to allow manufacturers to make voluntary (optional) representations of GSFLs at high frequency settings; to revise the sampling requirements; and to align sampling and certification requirements with proposed test procedure terminology and with the Federal Trade Commission's labeling program. DOE is seeking comment from interested parties on the proposal.
See section V, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants. If no participants register for the webinar then it will be cancelled.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The docket web page can be found at
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1943. Email:
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
DOE proposes to maintain previously approved incorporation by references and to incorporate by reference the following industry test standards into 10 CFR part 430:
ANSI Standard C78.21-2011 (R2016), (“ANSI C78.21-2011 (R2016)”), “American National Standard for Electric Lamps—PAR and R Shapes,” approved August 23, 2016.
ANSI Standard C78.79-2014 (R2020), (“ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020)”), “American National Standard for Electric Lamps—Nomenclature for Envelope Shapes Intended for Use with Electric Lamps,” approved January 17, 2020.
ANSI Standard C78.81, (“ANSI C78.81-2016”), “American National Standard for Electric Lamps—Double-Capped Fluorescent Lamps—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics,” approved June 29, 2016.
ANSI Standard C78.375A-2014 (R2020), (“ANSI C78.375A-2014 (R2020)”), “ANSI C78.375A-2014 (R2020) Revision of ANSI C78.375-2014, American National Standard for Electric Lamps-Fluorescent Lamps-Guide for Electrical Measures,” approved January 17, 2020.
ANSI Standard C78.901, (“ANSI C78.901-2016”), “American National Standard for Electric Lamps—Single-Based Fluorescent Lamps—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics,” approved August 23, 2016.
ANSI__ANSLG_C81.61-2006, Revision of ANSI C81.61-2005, (“ANSI C81.61”), American National Standard for electrical lamp bases—Specifications for Bases (Caps) for Electric Lamps, approved August 25, 2006.
ANSI Standard C82.3, (“ANSI C82.3”) “American National Standard for “For Reference Lamp Ballasts for Fluorescent Lamps,” approved April 8, 2016.
IES Test Method LM-9, (“IES LM-9-20”) “ANSI/IES LM-9-2020—Approved Method: Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Fluorescent Lamps,” approved February 7, 2020.
IES Test Method LM-20, (“IES LM-20-20”) “ANSI/IES LM-20-20 Approved Method: Photometry of Reflector Type Lamps,” approved February 7, 2020.
IES Test Method LM-45, (“IES LM-45-20”) “ANSI/IES LM-45-20 Approved Method: Electrical and
IES Test Method LM-49, (“IES LM-49”) “ANSI/IES LM-49-20 Approved Method: Life Testing of Incandescent Filament Lamps,” approved February 7, 2020.
IES Test Method LM-54, (“IES LM-54”), “ANSI/IES LM-54-20 Approved Method: IES Guide to Lamp Seasoning,” approved February 7, 2020.
IES Test Method LM-58, (“IES LM-58”) “ANSI/IES LM-58-20 Approved Method: Spectroradiometric Measurements Methods for Lighting Sources,” approved February 7, 2020.
IES Test Method LM-78, (“IES LM-78”) “ANSI/IES LM-78-20 Approved Method: Total Luminous Flux Measurement of Lamps Using an Integrating Sphere Photometer,” approved February 7, 2020.
CIE 15:2018, (“CIE 15:2018”) “Colorimetry, 4th Edition,” approved 2018.
Copies of ANSI C78.21, ANSI C78.79, ANSI C78.81, ANSI C78.375A, ANSI C78.901, ANSI C81.61, and ANSI C82.3 are available at
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.M.
1. Definitions
2. Sampling Requirements
3. Represented Value Determinations
4. Reporting Requirements
5. Rounding Requirements
General service fluorescent lamps (“GSFLs”), incandescent reflector lamps (“IRLs”), and general service incandescent lamps (“GSILs”) are included in the list of “covered products” for which the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14)) The current DOE test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix R (“Appendix R”). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish and amend test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs, as well as relevant background information regarding DOE's proposed amendments to the test procedures for these products.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides in relevant part that any test procedures prescribed or amended
Additionally, EPCA directs DOE to amend its test procedures for all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Standby mode and off mode energy consumption must be incorporated into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each covered product unless the current test procedures already account for and incorporate standby and off mode energy consumption or such integration is technically infeasible. If an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) Any such amendment must consider the most current versions of the International Electrotechnical Commission (“IEC”) Standard 62301
EPCA, as codified, directs DOE to prescribe test procedures for fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps, taking into consideration the applicable standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (“IES”) or the American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”). (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(6)) Consideration of IES and ANSI standards aligns DOE test procedures with latest industry practices for testing electric lamps and therefore DOE also considers these industry test standards when prescribing test procedures for general service incandescent lamps.
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered product, including GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) If the Secretary determines, on his/her own behalf or in response to a petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
DOE's existing test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs and GSILs appear at Appendix R (“Uniform Test Method for Measuring Average Lamp Efficacy (“LE”), Color Rendering Index (“CRI”), and Correlated Color Temperature (“CCT”) of Electric Lamps”).
On September 28, 1994, DOE issued an interim final rule to add a new section in the CFR to establish test procedures for certain fluorescent and incandescent lamps. 59 FR 49468. The test procedures incorporated by reference a number of IES and ANSI standards.
On May 29, 1997, DOE published a final rule adopting, with amendments, the test procedures established in the September 1994 interim final rule. 62 FR 29222. This final rule (1) affirmed DOE's determination that the test procedures effectively measure lamp efficacy and CRI and are not unduly burdensome to conduct and (2) incorporated updates to the referenced IES and ANSI standards.
On July 6, 2009, DOE published a final rule amending the test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs. 74 FR 31829. These amendments consisted largely of: (1) Referencing the most current versions of several lighting industry test standards incorporated by reference; (2) adopting certain technical changes and clarifications; and (3) expanding the test procedures to accommodate new classes of lamps to which coverage was extended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140).
DOE most recently amended the test procedures for GSFLs and GSILs in a final rule published on January 27, 2012. 77 FR 4203. DOE updated several references to the industry test standards referenced in DOE's test procedures and established a lamp lifetime test method for GSILs.
On August 8, 2017, DOE published in the
DOE received comments in response to the August 2017 RFI from the interested parties listed in Table I.1.
This document addresses information and comments received in response to the August 2017 RFI and proposes amendments to the test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs. A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update 10 CFR 430.2, 10 CFR 430.3, and Appendix R as follows: (1) Update references to industry test standards to reflect current industry practices; (2) modify, add, and remove definitions to better align with the scope and test methods; (3) reference specific sections within industry test standards for further clarity; (4) provide a test method for measuring CRI for incandescent lamps to support DOE requirements; and (5) provide a test method for measuring lifetime of incandescent reflector lamps to support the Federal Trade Commission's (“FTC's”) labeling requirements. Additionally, DOE proposes to revise the sampling requirements and to modify language specifying sampling and certification requirements in 10 CFR 429.27 to improve readability and organization and to support the FTC's labeling program. Further, DOE proposes to simplify language describing test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs in 10 CFR 430.23(r) by removing unnecessary information. Finally, DOE proposes to better align the terminology in the test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs with energy conservation standards codified in 10 CFR 430.32(n) and 10 CFR 430.32(x).
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments described in section III of this NOPR would not alter the measured efficiency of GSFLs, IRLs, or GSILs, or require retesting solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the proposed amendments to the test procedures, if made final. Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments, if made final, would not increase the cost of testing. DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 and addressed in detail in section III of this NOPR.
Although the August 2017 RFI requested comments, information and data regarding several specific issues, DOE welcomed written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of the document (including topics not raised in the RFI). In response to the August 2017 RFI, DOE received several general comments. One stakeholder stated that DOE should rescind many energy conservation standards as new reports indicate such regulations are redundant and increase costs, are hurtful to seniors and low-income groups, and do not protect the environment. (Anonymous, No. 4 at p. 1) Other stakeholders stated that regulations should be waived for the states of Texas and Louisiana, due to the destruction caused in these states by Hurricane Harvey. (Anonymous, No. 3 at p. 1; Anonymous, No. 2 at p. 1)
As stated in section I.A, DOE is publishing this NOPR to satisfy the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. This notice proposes updates to DOE test procedures to reflect current industry practices that are reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency and energy use during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the Secretary, and are not unduly burdensome to conduct. The estimated costs of the proposed updates are discussed in section III.H of this document. The scope of this notice does not include granting waivers to test procedures. (See 10 CFR 430.27 for procedures to petition for waivers from test procedures.)
Philips provided another general comment that as a NEMA member, it supported any comments submitted by NEMA in response to the August 2017 RFI. (Philips, No. 8 at p. 2) CA IOUs, along with ASAP, commended DOE for reassessing the test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs. CA IOUs noted that, while updates to the test procedures would impact state and voluntary regulations, it would be to a lesser extent due to the proliferation of solid-state lighting (“SSL”) products. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 1; ASAP, No. 9 at pp. 1-2) ASAP stated that, if updated test procedures resulted in a change in measured energy use that was not de minimis, DOE must modify the associated energy conservation standard. (ASAP, No. 9 at pp. 1-2)
DOE evaluates and discusses the impact of proposed amendments on measured values throughout this notice.
DOE test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs are codified in Appendix R and associated sampling and certification requirements are codified in 10 CFR 429.27. The scope of this rulemaking is to review and amend, as applicable, the test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs and the associated sampling and certification requirements. DOE received comments regarding scope in response to the August 2017 RFI.
In two final rules, effective January 1, 2020, DOE revised the definitions of general service lamp (“GSL”) and GSIL by bringing certain categories of lamps that had been excluded by statute from the definition of GSIL within the definitions of GSIL and GSL. 82 FR 7276; 82 FR 7322 (January 19, 2017) (“2017 GSL Definition Rules”). CA IOUs stated that DOE should acknowledge that its updated test methods will apply to the new GSIL definition, as defined by DOE on January 19, 2017. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 1) As noted, the requirements specified in Appendix R and 10 CFR 429.27 apply to GSILs and IRLs as those terms are defined in 10 CFR 430.2.
NEMA commented that DOE should not require lifetime testing of plug-in CFLs on reference ballasts. (NEMA, No. 7 at p. 6) The scope of this notice does not include assessing test procedures for CFLs.
The test conditions, methods, and measurements described in Appendix R reference several ANSI and IES standards. Several of the referenced industry test standards have been updated by industry since DOE last amended its test procedures. In the August 2017 RFI DOE requested information on updating Appendix R to reference the updated versions of these standards. 82 FR 37031, 37033, 37034.
NEMA stated it appreciated DOE's efforts to update current test procedures to reflect progress in related industry test standards and test procedures. NEMA anticipated no issues in updating to the current versions of standards (
In this NOPR, DOE reviews the latest versions of industry test standards to identify differences compared to previous versions and assesses the impact of changes on measured values.
NEMA and LEDVANCE stated that, even following ANSI and IES standards, testing variations will occur and, therefore, the lighting industry requires acceptable measurement and laboratory tolerances when considering compliance with standards. Further, they added that DOE should reference the NEMA LSD-63
Table III.1 shows the industry test standards currently referenced in Appendix R, whether there is an updated version available, and whether DOE is proposing to update to the latest version. In addition, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference IES LM-54-2020
Section 4.1.1 of Appendix R references industry test standards ANSI C78.375, ANSI C78.81, and ANSI C78.901 for the appropriate voltage and current conditions and ANSI C82.3 for the appropriate reference circuits in taking measurements of GSFLs.
ANSI C78.375 provides general guidance for taking measurements of electrical characteristics of fluorescent lamps. DOE reviewed changes in ANSI C78.375A-2020 relevant to specifications of voltage and current conditions. DOE identified that updates in ANSI C78.375A-2020 compared to its 1997 version included new references to industry test standards ANSI C78.81, ANSI C78.901, and ANSI C82.3 to determine the appropriate voltage and current to use in reference circuits. 82 FR 37031, 37034. Regarding updating DOE's test procedure to reference ANSI C78.375A-2014, NEMA and LEDVANCE stated they were not aware of any issues. (NEMA, No. 7 at pp. 2-3; LEDVANCE, No. 5 at p. 3) Because ANSI C78.81, ANSI C78.901, and ANSI C82.3 are already referenced by the DOE test procedure to determine the voltage and current to use in reference circuits, and DOE has determined (as described in the following paragraphs) that changes in the updated versions of these industry test standards will not affect final measured values, DOE has tentatively determined this update in ANSI C78.375A-2020 would not impact the current requirements of the DOE test procedure or change final measured values. Therefore, DOE proposes to update references from the 1997 version of ANSI C78.375 to the 2020 version in Appendix R.
Per section 4.1.1 of Appendix R, GSFLs must be operated by a reference ballast at an input voltage specified in the reference circuit as described in ANSI C82.3. ANSI C82.3 provides general design and operating characteristics for reference ballasts used to test fluorescent lamps. Compared to the 2002 version, the 2016 version of ANSI C82.3 contains updates regarding impedance tolerances, voltage regulation, and instrumentation for taking high frequency measurements. 82 FR 37031, 37034. Regarding updating DOE's test procedure to reference ANSI C82.3-2016, NEMA and LEDVANCE stated they were not aware of any issues. (NEMA, No. 7 at pp. 2-3; LEDVANCE, No. 5 at p. 3)
DOE identified the specific changes in the updated version of ANSI C82.3 to the impedance, frequency, and voltage requirements when operating a reference ballast with a fluorescent lamp in high frequency conditions. First, the 2016 version of ANSI C82.3 no longer requires an impedance tolerance of 1 percent for currents between 50 and 115 percent of the calibration current. Second, the 2016 version of ANSI C82.3 removes frequency tolerances for operation with certain types of reference ballasts. Third, the 2016 version of ANSI C82.3 increases the power supply voltage tolerance from 0.2 percent to 1.0 percent. Although the 2016 version of ANSI C82.3 removes impedance tolerances at certain currents and the frequency tolerance and allows a wider range for power supply voltage tolerance, DOE's current test procedure requires reference ballasts to meet specific current, frequency, and voltage requirements and associated tolerances specified in the relevant lamp datasheets. Hence, if all requirements for reference ballasts in DOE's test procedures are satisfied, DOE has tentatively determined that changes in impedance, frequency, and voltage tolerances in ANSI C82.3 would not affect final measured values. DOE has tentatively determined updates in ANSI C82.3-2016 would not impact the current requirements of the DOE test procedure or change final measured values. Therefore, DOE proposes to update references from the 2002 version of ANSI C82.3 to the 2016 version in Appendix R.
Lamp data sheets with physical and electrical characteristics of fluorescent lamps are provided in ANSI C78.81 (double-ended lamps) and ANSI C78.901 (single-ended lamps). In the latest versions, ANSI C78.81-2016 and ANSI C78.901-2016, DOE has identified new lamp datasheets and updates to existing lamp datasheets for certain GSFLs. DOE proposes to maintain the current references to ANSI C78.81-2010 and ANSI C78.901-2005 for determining compliance and to add provisions for manufacturers to make additional voluntary representations based on high frequency testing using the updated lamp data sheets. A lamp data sheet provides the physical and electrical characteristics needed to operate a lamp appropriately, including starting method and the input voltage, current, and impedance of the reference ballast on which the lamp should be tested. For some lamps, the updated industry test standard now specifies only high frequency reference ballast settings, whereas previously low frequency settings were provided. Because cathode heat is not utilized at high frequency, the lamp efficacy would likely increase during high frequency operation compared to low frequency operation. DOE's test procedure requires testing at low frequency unless only high frequency settings are provided. Hence the potential adoption of ANSI C78.81-2016 and ANSI C78.901-2016 could result in certain lamps that were previously tested at low frequency being tested at high frequency, negating the consideration of cathode heat. ANSI C78.81-2016 and/or ANSI C78.901-2016 remove low frequency reference ballast settings and provide only high frequency reference ballast settings for the following lamps: 32 Watt (“W”), 48-Inch T8 lamp; 32 W U-shaped lamp, 6-Inch Center T8 lamp; 31 W, U-shaped, 1-5/8 Inch Center T8 lamp; 59 W, 96-Inch T8, Single Pin Instant Start lamp; and 25 W, 28 W, and 30 W 48-Inch T8 lamps. Additionally, two new lamp datasheets were added providing only high frequency reference ballast settings for the following lamps: 30 W, U-shaped, 6-Inch Center T8 lamp and 54 W 96-Inch T8, Single Pin Instant Start lamp. 82 FR 37031, 37034.
NEMA noted that, although DOE stated in the August 2017 RFI that the updated version of ANSI C78.901 was 2014, a 2016 version was available. (In this notice, DOE's assessments of ANSI C78.901 are based on the 2016 version.) However, in general, NEMA, LEDVANCE, and Philips objected to adopting any updated versions of ANSI C78.901 or ANSI C78.81. NEMA, LEDVANCE, and Philips explained that testing fluorescent lamps at high frequency settings instead of low frequency settings would result in an apparent measured efficiency increase of approximately 5 to 10 percent. (NEMA, No. 7 at p. 3; LEDVANCE, No. 5 at p. 3; Philips, No. 8 at p. 2)
NEMA stated that current standards for GSFLs were based on the 2010 version of ANSI C78.81 and 2005 version of ANSI C78.901 currently referenced in Appendix R. NEMA and Philips asserted that testing lamps previously tested under low frequency settings at high frequency settings could allow non-compliant lamps to meet standards. (NEMA, No. 7 at p. 3; Philips, No. 8 at p. 2) NEMA stated that compliance with standards must remain linked to the test procedures on which the standards are based. (NEMA, No. 7 at p. 3) LEDVANCE asserted that, if DOE were to update to the latest versions of ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901, it would also have to amend the applicable energy conservation standards for GSFLs and increasing these standards was unreasonable for a mature product already at maximum technology.
Additionally, LEDVANCE stated, because at high frequency settings the lamp is providing the same lumen output as at low frequency but at a lower system wattage, the efficacy increase would be misleading to the consumers, who associate higher efficacy with more lumens, ultimately causing consumer dissatisfaction. (LEDVANCE, No. 5 at p. 3)
NEMA and LEDVANCE added that changing the test procedure to reference high rather than low frequency settings would require retesting lamps, resulting in significant test burden for all manufacturers. LEDVANCE estimated that retesting a portfolio of T8 lamps could cost between $100,000 to $200,000, excluding test equipment purchases and certification costs. (NEMA, No. 7 at p. 3; LEDVANCE, No. 5 at p. 3)
DOE's assessment of ANSI C78.81-2016 and ANSI C78.901-2016 indicates that there has been a considerable shift to testing on high frequency settings for fluorescent lamps. Except for T12 lamps and a 51 W 8-foot single-pin T8 lamp, GSFLs with ANSI specifications have only high frequency reference ballast settings in the updated standards. This shift was also noted in the review of GSFL energy conservation standards updated in a final rule published January 26, 2015, and for which compliance was required beginning January 26, 2018. 80 FR 4042 (“2015 GSFL Rule”).
In response to the preliminary analysis preceding the 2015 GSFL Rule, NEMA stated that, because of the market shift to electronic high frequency ballasts, ANSI had drafted new standards for electrical and photometric characterization of GSFL T8 lamps that were based on high frequency rather than the former low frequency 60 Hz reference ballasts. NEMA further explained that these high frequency specifications would be published in 2013 at which point industry would begin characterizing its products using these high frequency specifications. NEMA recommended that DOE base its assessment of potential amendments to standards for GSFLs on the new ANSI high frequency standards. 79 FR 24068, 24096 (April 29, 2014). In response to the NOPR of the 2015 GSFL Rule, NEMA also raised several concerns with DOE's Compliance, Certification Management System (“CCMS”) database and the use of high frequency settings. NEMA stated that DOE's assessment of the CCMS data indicated the possibility that 4-foot medium bipin (“MBP”) reduced wattage lamps and 59 W and 54 W 8-foot single-pin slimline lamps (59 W to a lesser degree) are being tested erroneously on high frequency settings. 80 FR 4071, 4072.
The updated ANSI standards were not available in time for the 2015 GSFL Rule to consider basing its analysis on high frequency specifications. Hence the 2015 GSFL Rule established efficacy levels based on ANSI wattages as specified in ANSI C78.81-2010 and ANSI C78.901-2004 and initial lumen outputs published in manufacturer catalogs.
It would be to the benefit of the manufacturers and consumers to align DOE requirements to the latest industry requirements, providing one consistent method of assessing the efficacy of fluorescent lamps. DOE understands that the change in measured efficacy when testing on high frequency versus low frequency settings resulting from updated versions of ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901 is not de minimis. Adoption of test procedures that reference the latest versions of ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901 would impact compliance under the current GSFL energy conservation standards and require reassessment of the energy conservation standards based on measured values tested according to DOE test procedures using the updated industry test standards (
Based on the impact to test results from testing using only high frequency settings as provided in ANSI C78.81-2016 and ANSI C78.901-2016, and the corresponding potential that products currently not compliant would meet the energy conservation standards if tested under these latest industry test standards, DOE proposes to maintain the references to the 2010 version of ANSI C78.81 and 2005 version of ANSI C78.901. This ensures that lamps are tested and certified for compliance according to settings upon which current minimum requirements for GSFLs were established. However, DOE also proposes that manufacturers can voluntarily make representations at the high frequency settings specified in the 2016 versions of ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901 in accordance with test procedures specified in Appendix R and sampling requirements in 10 CFR 429.27. These values would not be used for compliance but would be in addition to values obtained for compliance and used for determining if and how standards for GSFLs should be amended to accommodate testing at high frequency settings. As a best practice, an indication of high frequency operation should be provided with the voluntary representations. DOE proposes to incorporate by reference ANSI C78.81-2016 and ANSI C78.901-2016 for this purpose.
Also, ANSI C78.81-2016 includes updates to the reference ballast characteristics for input voltage and impedance while maintaining the current for the 86 W, 96-Inch T8 lamp. In the August 2017 RFI, DOE requested information on how these updated ballast characteristics would impact measured lamp efficacy. 82 FR 37031, 37034. LEDVANCE responded that for the 86 W, 96-Inch T8 lamp the impedance was changed simply to harmonize the impedance value across lamp types and to aid with starting. LEDVANCE further stated that changing the impedance or circuit voltage to maintain the same lamp current would not change any lamp characteristics. (LEDVANCE, No. 5 at p. 4)
DOE has preliminarily determined that changes to lamp characteristics of the 86 W, 96-Inch T8 lamp will not impact final measured values. However, as stated previously, due to updates that provide only high frequency settings for certain lamps, DOE is not proposing to incorporate ANSI C78.81-2016 for the purposes of testing to assess compliance with DOE's minimum requirements.
Section 4.4.1 of Appendix R describes test methods for measuring CRI and CCT. It states that the required spectroradiometric measurement and characterization shall be conducted in accordance with IES LM-58.
Since the publication of the August 2017 RFI, a 2020 version of IES LM-58 has been published. In this notice, DOE is proposing to update the currently referenced 1994 version of IES LM-58 to the 2020 version. Specifically, the 2020 and 2013 versions of IES LM-58 remove definitions for spectral irradiance, spectral radiance, and spectral radiant intensity; and add a definition for colorimeter. IES LM-58-2020 also removes the definition for bandwidth and replaces the term bandwidth with bandpass throughout the standard. IES LM-58-2020 continues to describe how to measure spectral irradiance, spectral radiance, and spectral radiant intensity, which are different ways of measuring radiant flux, and describe how to use bandpass (previously referred to as bandwidth) in detail. DOE has tentatively determined the term colorimeter, which is a basic instrument for measuring chromaticity, was likely added for completeness. IES LM-58-2020 also includes the new section on array spectrometry and adds further specificity in taking spectral power measurements. It specifies that the stray light for a good single-pass and double-pass monochromator to be respectively, less than 10
Sections 3.2, 4.2.1, and 4.2.2 of Appendix R specify that for GSILs test conditions, methods, and measurements should be conducted in accordance with 2009 version of IES LM-45. IES LM-45 provides methods for taking electrical and photometric measurements of general service incandescent filament lamps. DOE's initial review indicated that changes in IES LM-45-2015, compared to its 2009 version, included clarification updates regarding the impact of lamp polarity on light output and changes to certain tolerances (
Since the publication of the August 2017 RFI, a 2020 version of IES LM-45 has been published. In this notice, DOE is proposing to update the currently referenced 2009 version of IES LM-45 to the 2020 version. Specifically, DOE identified the following key changes in both the 2015 and 2020 versions of IES LM-45, compared to the currently referenced 2009 version: (1) Specifies testing with the same polarity connections; (2) increases impedance tolerance of current input from 10 milliohms to 20 milliohms; and (3) updates tolerances for detector used to measure lumens.
DOE has tentatively determined that added information on polarity connections in IES LM-45-2020 is only explicitly stating what is likely already practiced by test laboratories based on how measurements are taken in electrical circuit setups. DOE has tentatively concluded that the change in current input impedance tolerance for instrumentation is small and not discernable in the final measured values. Regarding updates to detector use, the 2020 version states each detector must have a relative spectral responsivity which approximates the luminosity function less than 3 percent while a 5 percent threshold is specified in the 2009 version. Additionally, the 2020 version states that the minimum distance of the detector is 10 times the lamp length to keep error less than 1 percent while 5 times the lamp length is specified in the 2009 version. DOE has tentatively concluded that these changes have been made to ensure accuracy of measurement but do not substantively impact final measured values.
IES LM-45 references IES LM-54, the industry standard for lamp seasoning, with regards to seasoning lamps. Section 6.2 of IES LM-45-2020 updates its references of IES LM-54 from the 1999
In summary, DOE has tentatively concluded that updates in IES LM-45-2020 would not change final measured values. Therefore, DOE proposes to update references from the 2009 version of IES LM-45 to the 2020 version in Appendix R.
Section 4.2.3 of Appendix R specifies that lifetime testing of GSILs must be conducted in accordance with the 2001 version of IESNA LM-49. IESNA LM-49
Since the publication of the August 2017 RFI, a 2020 version of IES LM-49 has been published. In this notice, DOE is proposing to update the currently referenced 2001 version of IES LM-45 to the 2020 version. The key changes DOE identified were in both the 2012 and 2020 versions of IES LM-49. Specifically, DOE identified revisions in IES LM-49-2020 that modify language to appropriately use root mean square (“RMS”) voltage and provide further specifications on test receptacles and lamp holders. The added instrument tolerances for the test voltage are the same as those specified in IES LM-45-2009. Because IES LM-45-2009 is the currently referenced standard for electrical and photometric measurements of incandescent lamps, the tolerances in this standard are likely already being followed for any test of an incandescent lamp. IES LM-49-2020 changes the interval for checking lamp failures from no more than 0.5 percent of rated life to 1 percent of rated life. This change continues to allow checking lamp failure at or less than 0.5 percent of rated life, and therefore would not require retesting. Further DOE finds that IES LM-49-2020 also specifies the recorded failure time should be the midpoint of the monitoring interval. This specification would add consistency to the execution of the test method. Further, because each interval is no more than a few minutes, the point within the interval at which the measurement is taken would not have a significant impact on the final measured value.
DOE has tentatively concluded that the updates in IES LM-49-2020 would not change final measured values. Therefore, DOE proposes to update references from the 2001 version of IES LM-49 to the 2020 version in Appendix R.
Sections 3.3, 4.3.1, and 4.3.2 of Appendix R specify that, for IRLs, test conditions, methods, and measurements must be conducted in accordance with IESNA LM-20-1994. IESNA LM-20
Since the publication of the August 2017 RFI, a 2020 version of IES LM-20 has been published. In this notice, DOE is proposing to update the currently referenced 1994 version of IES LM-20 to the 2020 version. DOE has tentatively determined that the updates identified in IES LM-20-2013 have been retained and no other key changes have been made in the 2020 version. Compared to the 2013 version, IES LM-20-2020 mainly updates references to other industry standards.
IES LM-20-2013 adds new definitions (
Section 8.0 of IES LM-20-2020 provides more updated information regarding minimizing errors when calibrating the integrating sphere and directly references IES LM-78-2020, the industry standard for measurements in an integrating sphere, for basic integrating sphere photometer calibration and measurements. Because DOE allows use of an integrating sphere to make necessary photometric measurements of IRLs, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference IES LM-78-2020 for Appendix R and referencing section 8.0 of IES LM-20-2020 directly in its revisions to Appendix R (see section III.C.b). Further IES LM-20 references IES LM-54, the industry standard for lamp seasoning, with regard to seasoning lamps. Section 6.0 of IES LM-20-2020 updates its references of IES LM-54 from the 1991
IES LM-20-2020 references IES LM-45-2020 for ambient temperature and instrumentation conditions and lamp connections and circuits while IES LM-20-1994 references IES LM-45-1991. Compared to the 1991 version, IES LM-45-2020 changed the temperature tolerance from +/−1 degree to +/−10 degrees. IES LM-45-2020 also states that maintaining temperature is not critical for incandescent filament lamps. Because incandescent filament lamps are not sensitive to small temperature changes, DOE has tentatively determined that the change in temperature tolerance would not impact final measured values. Additionally, IES LM-45-2020 omits the statement that instruments will have an accuracy of at least 0.25 percent, instead referencing instrument manuals and specifying instrumentation tolerances; tightens the DC supply voltage tolerance from 0.1 to 0.02 percent; provides specific impedance tolerances for supply voltages and currents; and specifies tolerances for detectors to measure lumens. DOE has tentatively concluded that test labs typically adhere to the specifications in instrument manuals as a best practice. Further the changes and addition of tolerances provide greater specificity in the calibration of instruments, increasing repeatability and reproducibility. DOE has tentatively concluded that these updates would not impact final measured values. IES LM-45-2020 also adds basic lamp connection and circuit information including circuit diagrams for AC and DC connections to a lamp. Because the
IES LM-20-2020 also references IES LM-45-2020 for lamp stabilization procedures while IES LM-20-1994 only states that lamps should be seasoned to provide necessary stabilization. IES LM-45-2020 provides a method commonly used in industry for establishing lamp stability. The method requires determining the average percent difference of maximum and minimum measurements at several regular intervals and ensuring it is within a certain tolerance. Laboratories are likely already following a method like the one prescribed in IES LM-45-2020 to ensure stability of IRLs before taking measurements. Hence, DOE has tentatively concluded that the requirement of a specific stabilization method only explicitly references a procedure that is already being followed.
In summary, DOE has tentatively concluded that changes in IES LM-20-2020 would not change measured values. DOE proposes that manufacturers would not be required to retest and would be able to continue to rely upon test data previously conducted in accordance with the DOE test procedure. Hence, DOE proposes to update references from the 1994 version of IES LM-20 to the 2020 version in 10 CFR 430.3 for Appendix R.
Sections 3.1, 4.1.1, and 4.4 of Appendix R specify that, for GSFLs, test conditions, methods, and measurements must be conducted in accordance with the 2009 version of IES LM-9. IES LM-9 provides methods for taking electrical and photometric measurements of fluorescent lamps. The latest version of the industry standard, IES LM-9-2020 was not available for analysis and requests for comment in the August 2017 RFI. DOE's initial review of this standard indicates no major changes in the 2020 version except for relevant updated references.
Section 6.2 of IES LM-9-2020 updates its reference of IES LM-54, the industry standard for lamp seasoning, from the 1999 version to 2020 version. DOE has tentatively determined that referencing the 2020 version of IES LM-54 will not change final measured values and proposes to incorporate the standard for Appendix R (see section 7). Because lamp seasoning is a necessary part of testing GSFLs, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference IES LM-54-2020 for appendix R and to reference section 6.2 of IES LM-9-2020 directly in its revisions to Appendix R (see section III.C.a). Section 7.0 of IES LM-9-2020 updates its references of IES LM-78 from the 2007 to the 2020 version. DOE has tentatively determined that referencing the 2020 version of IES LM-78 will not change final measured values and proposes to incorporate the standard for Appendix R (see section 7). Because DOE allows use of an integrating sphere to make necessary photometric measurements of GSFLs, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference IES LM-78-2020 for Appendix R and referencing section 7.0 of IES LM-9-2020 directly in its revisions to Appendix R (see section III.C.b).
In summary, DOE has tentatively concluded that updates in IES LM-9-2020 would not change final measured values. Therefore, DOE proposes to update references from the 2009 version of IES LM-9 to the 2020 version in Appendix R.
IES LM-54 is the industry standard for lamp seasoning. Appendix R currently references sections of IES LM-45-2009 and IES LM-9-2009 which reference IES LM-54-1999; and sections of IES LM-20-1994 which reference IES LM-54-1991. The 2020 versions of IES LM-45, IES LM-9, and IES LM-20 proposed for incorporation by reference for Appendix R in this notice have updated this reference to IES LM-54-2020. The latest version of the industry standard, IES LM-54-2020 was not available for analysis and requests for comment in the August 2017 RFI.
Compared to both the 1991 and 1999 versions, the 2020 version of IES LM-54 adds numerous new sections which codify best practices that labs are likely already following. The 2020 version adds a section on physical environment test conditions that covers topics such as keeping labs clean and within the ambient temperature range; not subjecting lamps to excessive vibration/shock; and using airflow to cool the seasoning area. The 2020 version also adds a section on electrical test conditions which includes instructions on frequency, voltage wave shape, and voltage regulation; basic lamp connection protocols; and setting up an adjacent ground for fluorescent lamps. Additionally, the 2020 version includes a new section on test preparation which addresses how to handle and mark lamps. Finally, the 2020 version adds a statement expressly stating that the orientation of the lamp during seasoning should be maintained for the entire test. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to specify in Appendix R that lamp orientation be maintained throughout testing, including seasoning and lamp handling between tests (see section 2 for further details) for all test methods in Appendix R. These specifications in IES LM-54-2020 are similar to test conditions in other industry lamp standards. DOE has tentatively determined that the additions in IES LM-54-2020 are industry best practices for taking lamp measurements, and therefore likely are already being followed by laboratories.
DOE also identified updates to specifications in the 1991 version. The 1991 version states normal seasoning is generally performed at rated voltage for a period of 0.5 to 1 percent of rated life. The 2020 version states normal seasoning refers to lamp operation at rated voltage for 0.5 percent of rated life. Because 0.5 percent was already part of the range, DOE has tentatively concluded that this change will negligibly impact the seasoning of the lamp. Additionally, compared to the 1991 version, IES LM-54-2020 provides new accelerated seasoning times for lamps with rated life of 100-499 hours and changes the accelerated seasoning time from 45 minutes to 30 minutes for lamps with lifetimes of 500-1000 hours. IES LM-54-2020 also provides equations to calculate more-precise estimates of accelerated seasoning time, which DOE understands to be minimum seasoning times. The 1991 version did not include these equations. These changes reflect a more precise assessment of accelerated seasoning time, requiring less seasoning for lamps with shorter lifetimes. DOE has tentatively concluded that these adjustments make the accelerated seasoning method more practical to follow and would negligibly impact the seasoning of the lamp.
IES LM-78 is the industry standard for taking measurements in an integrating sphere. Appendix R currently reference sections of IES LM-45-2009 and IES LM-9-2009 which reference IES LM-78-2007. The 2020 versions of IES LM-45 and IES LM-9 proposed for incorporation by reference for Appendix R in this notice have updated this reference to IES LM-78-2020. The latest version of the industry standard, IES LM-78-2020 was not available for analysis and requests for comment in the August 2017 RFI.
DOE identified several changes in 2020 version of IES LM-78 compared to the 2007 version. The 2020 version includes a discussion of spectral
DOE also identified updates to specifications. The 2020 version states the sphere diameter be 1.5 times the length of a linear lamp whereas it was 2 times the length in the 2007 version. IES LM-78-2020 also states for the degree of the spectral match to the V(λ) function, it is preferable that the value of the photometer be less than 3 percent whereas it was less than 5 percent in the 2007 version. Throughout the standard the term spatial luminous intensity is replaced with angular luminous intensity. Finally, the uncertainty analysis section has been condensed to a list of potential sources of errors and references to other industry standards for guidance. DOE has tentatively concluded that these updates are minimal and will not impact final measured values.
Section 4.4.1 of Appendix R states that for incandescent lamps CCT shall be determined in accordance with the 2004 version of CIE 15. CIE 15 provides the International Commission on Illumination's recommendations concerning colorimetry (
DOE proposes changes to Appendix R to improve the organization of the test procedures, further clarify test conditions and measurement steps, and cite specific sections of referenced industry test standards. Note that the proposed section references of industry test standards are based on the version of the standard proposed for adoption (see section III.B). Additionally, DOE proposes to remove references to rounding and sample size from Appendix R, as these requirements are addressed in 10 CFR 429.27, and also to remove references to minimum lifetime standards as these are provided in 10 CFR 430.32(x)(1)(iii)(A)-(B). DOE details these proposed changes to Appendix R in the following sections.
DOE proposes to define certain new terms and modify certain existing terms in Appendix R. Specifically, DOE proposes to add “time to failure.” To support the test method in Appendix R for measuring lifetime of lamps that use incandescent technology, DOE proposes to define “time to failure” as the time elapsed between first use and the point at which the lamp ceases to produce measurable lumen output. This definition clarifies the time that must be measured to determine the lifetime of the lamp.
Additionally, DOE proposes four changes related to the definition of “lamp efficacy”: (1) To replace “lamp efficacy” with “initial lamp efficacy;” (2) to simplify this definition by referencing lamp efficacy as defined in 10 CFR 430.2; (3) to specify that the value is determined after the lamp is stabilized and seasoned; and (4) to remove references to rounding requirements, which are proposed to be addressed in 10 CFR 429.27 (see section 4 for details on DOE's proposal to consolidate rounding requirements in 10 CFR 429.27). DOE also proposes to replace “lamp lumen output” with “initial lumen output” and to specify that it is the initial lumen output measured after the lamp is stabilized and seasoned. Similarly, DOE proposes to replace “lamp electrical power input” with “initial input power” and to specify that it is the initial input power measured after the lamp is stabilized and seasoned. These proposed changes more accurately describe the values being determined and measured by the test methods in Appendix R.
DOE also proposes to remove the term “reference condition” because it is neither referenced in nor necessary for the test procedure. Additionally, DOE proposes to remove definitions for “ANSI Standard,” “CIE,” and “IESNA” in Appendix R because 10 CFR 430.3 contains the relevant terms. Further, DOE proposes to remove definitions for “CCT” and “CRI” which only reference the definitions in 10 CFR 430.2.
DOE also proposes to update section references to definitions in industry test standards to align with the proposed updated versions by changing references to section 2 of IES LM-58-1994 to be references to section 3 of IES LM-58-2020 and to delete the reference to Glossary of IES LM-45-2015 as it no longer exists in the 2020 version.
To improve the readability of and streamline the test methods in Appendix R, DOE proposes to add a “General Instructions” section to specify test practices applicable to all lamps covered by the appendix.
To ensure consistency in measurements, DOE proposes to include in the “General Instructions” section specifications regarding: (1) Conflicting requirements; (2) lamp orientation; (3) lamp breakage; and (4) rated voltage. First, DOE proposes that, where there is a conflict between requirements in referenced industry test standards and those in the appendix, the latter must take precedence. Second, DOE proposes that lamp orientation be maintained throughout testing, including seasoning and lamp handling between tests. Third, DOE proposes that, if a lamp breaks, becomes defective, fails to stabilize, exhibits abnormal behavior such as swirling
Regarding instructions for rated voltage, in the August 2017 RFI, DOE noted that currently Appendix R requires that incandescent lamps be operated at the “rated voltage as defined in § 430.2.” This definition of “rated voltage with respect to incandescent lamps” references the term “design voltage,” also defined in 10 CFR 430.2. The terms “rated voltage with respect to incandescent lamps” and the associated “design voltage with respect to incandescent lamps” are defined as follows in 10 CFR 430.2:
(1) The design voltage if the design voltage is 115 V, 130 V or between 115V and 130 V;
(2) 115 V if the design voltage is less than 115 V and greater than or equal to 100 V and the lamp can operate at 115 V; and
(3) 130 V if the design voltage is greater than 130 V and less than or equal to 150 V and the lamp can operate at 130 V.
(1) The voltage marked as the intended operating voltage;
(2) The mid-point of the voltage range if the lamp is marked with a voltage range; or
(3) 120 V if the lamp is not marked with a voltage or voltage range. 10 CFR 430.2.
DOE requested feedback on simplifying the test voltage requirements in these definitions and aligning them, to the extent possible, with DOE test procedure requirements for other lamp types such as CFLs and integrated LED lamps. Those test procedures require that CFLs and integrated LED lamps be tested at the voltage marked on the lamp as the intended operating voltage and if no voltage is marked to test at 120 volts (“V”); if multiple voltages are marked including 120 V to test at 120 V, and if multiple voltages are marked not including 120 V to test at the highest voltage. 82 FR 37031, 37035. DOE received several comments on modifying the required test voltage for incandescent lamps.
NEMA and LEDVANCE stated their support for simplifying the test voltage requirements for incandescent lamps with LEDVANCE adding that the requirement should also apply to IRLs. It is not clear whether NEMA intended to include IRLs in “incandescent lamps,” as NEMA did not specifically reference IRLs in its comments on test voltage requirements. Both parties added that DOE's considered changes to test voltage specifications in the August 2017 RFI would have little practical impact on products that meet standards stating that, while there is a reduction in efficiency when testing 130 V lamps at 120 V, there are no 130 V lamps on the market. (NEMA, No. 7 at p. 5; LEDVANCE, No. 5 at p. 5) Philips also posed no objections to modifying the required test voltage for incandescent lamps and referred to NEMA's comment on the subject. (Philips, No. 8 at p. 3)
However, CA IOUs expressed concern regarding modifying the requirement for lamps to be tested at the marked voltage. CA IOUs noted that GSILs are defined as lamps operating at least partially within 110 to 130 volts and with a minimum light output of 310 lumens (232 lumens for modified spectrum). Further, the 2017 GSL Definition Rules specified GSLs, which include GSILs and IRLs, as lamps operating between 100 to 130 V with a minimum light output of 310 lumens. CA IOUs argued that testing at the labeled voltage could allow lamps to be tested at a lower voltage producing less than the minimum lumens to be considered GSLs. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 2) ASAP stated that for incandescent lamps an increase in voltage will lead to higher lumens, and some manufacturers may choose to label their lamps at a lower voltage than for which it was designed to avoid the minimum lumen requirements of a GSL. In particular, ASAP expressed concerns regarding re-rating by manufacturers for incandescent lamps with medium screw bases. ASAP added that allowing manufacturers to test lamps at labeled voltages not used in real applications could yield results that are not representative of actual performance for the vast majority of consumers. Regarding aligning with the CFL and integrated LED lamp test procedures, ASAP stated that CFLs and integrated LED lamps are often designed to maintain uniform power consumption and brightness across a range of operating voltages and therefore can be tested at the voltage marked on the lamp. Further ASAP stated that the current definition of “rated voltage with respect to incandescent lamps” and the associated “design voltage” terminology in 10 CFR 430.2 provides sufficient flexibility to accommodate different types of incandescent lamps while avoiding loopholes. (ASAP, No. 9 at pp. 2-3)
Based on feedback in response to the August 2017 RFI and further review, modifying the test voltage requirements in Appendix R to align with DOE test procedure requirements for CFLs and LED lamps would change the rated voltage for certain IRLs and potentially exclude them from the definition of IRL, which is defined as having a rated voltage or voltage range that lies at least partially in the range of 115 and 130 volts. Further, because energy conservation standards are in part determined by the rated voltage of the IRL, changes to rated voltage may subject lamps to different standards. Therefore, DOE proposes to maintain the current specifications for determining the test voltage of incandescent lamps as specified in the definition of “rated voltage with respect to incandescent lamps” in 10 CFR 430.2. DOE proposes to move this voltage specification currently codified as part of a definition to the “General Instructions” section of Appendix R to make it clear that it applies to GSIL and IRL test methods in Appendix R.
To improve the organization of the appendix, DOE proposes to create a section called “Test Method for Determining Initial Input Power, Initial Lumen Output, Initial Lamp Efficacy, CRI, and CCT” and include existing sections regarding these measurements as subsections.
The test conditions and setup section of the test procedure provides specifications regarding the ambient, physical, and electrical conditions of the test setup. To convey this purpose DOE proposes to include the term “setup” in the title and modify the existing language to use the phrase “establish ambient, physical, and electrical conditions” consistently.
Additionally, for GSFLs, DOE proposes to move the specifications on appropriate voltage and current conditions and reference ballast settings from the “Test Methods and Measurements” section to “Test Conditions and Setup” as these requirements are part of the electrical conditions and setup that should be met prior to taking any measurements. Further as stated in section 1, DOE proposes to allow manufacturers to make voluntary representations for GSFLs that are based on high frequency reference ballast settings in the 2016 versions of ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901. (These optional representations would be in addition to the required representations made in accordance with the DOE test procedure and would not be used to show compliance with minimum requirements.) In support of this testing,
Further, DOE proposes to clarify existing instructions regarding operation on low versus high frequency reference ballast settings and the inclusion of cathode power in measurements. For any lamp with an ANSI datasheet, if the datasheet includes low frequency settings, the test would occur using low frequency settings and DOE proposes to clearly state when to include cathode power. For any lamp with an ANSI datasheet that does not include low frequency settings, the test would occur using high frequency settings and cathode power would not be included. For any lamp with no ANSI datasheet, DOE proposes to add text that clarifies the frequency of operation and whether to include cathode power in calculations.
DOE proposes to specify that when operating at low frequency, cathode power must be included in the measurement if ANSI C78.81 or ANSI C78.901 classifies the circuit application as “rapid start.” If those industry test standards classify the circuit application as something other than “rapid start,” cathode power would not be included. DOE also proposes to specify that cathode power must not be included in measurements when operating at high frequency. DOE seeks comments on the usefulness of the proposed general clarification regarding cathode power for lamps found in ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901 and any associated impacts on test burden.
Additionally, for lamps that do not have lamp data sheets in industry test standards, DOE provides reference ballast settings on which to test in Appendix R. DOE obtained these reference ballast settings from existing lamp data sheets of industry test standards for the lamp type most similar to the lamp type not contained in the industry test standard. However, Appendix R only specifies the reference ballast settings and does not indicate whether the test must be done at low or high frequency or include cathode power. DOE proposes to specifically state whether lamp types not included in industry test standards must be tested at low or high frequency to clarify that manufacturers only need to conduct one test and to indicate the frequency at which that test must occur. DOE also proposes to specify for these lamps whether cathode power must be included in the measurements. DOE bases this proposal on how the lamp types most similar to the lamp type not contained in the industry test standard are tested. DOE proposes to specify the following:
DOE notes that if this proposal were finalized, DOE would expect manufacturers whose test data was not consistent with the specified cathode heat provisions would be required to retest. DOE seeks comments on the usefulness of the proposed clarification regarding the frequency of operation and inclusion of cathode power for lamps that do not have lamp data sheets in industry test standards and any associated impacts on test burden.
Appendix R currently references IES LM-9, IES LM-45, and IES LM-20 in their entirety for test conditions. DOE proposes to specify that ambient, physical, and electrical conditions be established as described in sections 4.0, 5.0, 6.1, 6.5 and 6.6 of IES LM-9 for GSFLs; sections 4.0, 5.0, 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4 in IES LM-45 for GSILs; and sections 4.0 and 5.0 of IES LM-20 for IRLs.
The proposed updates to test conditions and setup in Appendix R only reorganize or specify more exact industry reference to current specifications and would not change current requirements of the DOE test procedure.
The section on test methods and measurements in the current Appendix R, in some cases, references industry test standards in their entirety. It also does not expressly state when to season and stabilize the lamps or take measurements or which measurements to take. DOE proposes to limit references of industry test standards to listed sections and to reorganize the section to provide a clear, step-by-step process of seasoning and stabilizing the lamp; taking the appropriate measurements of initial input power and initial lumen output; and making necessary calculations to determine values of initial lamp efficacy, CCT, and CRI.
DOE proposes to state explicitly that lamps must be seasoned and stabilized according to section 6.2 in IES LM-45 for GSILs and section 6.0 in IES LM-20 for IRLs. These proposed updates only specify more exact industry reference to current specifications and will not change current requirements of the DOE test procedure.
In the August 2017 RFI, DOE requested information on the use of the “peak lumen method,” which is an alternative stabilization method referenced in IES LM-9, the industry test standard for non-CFL lamps that use fluorescent technology. 82 FR 37031, 37035. DOE received several comments on this method. NEMA and LEDVANCE explained that the peak lumen method is useful for lamps that have long stabilization times such as high output lamps. (NEMA, No. 7 at p. 5; LEDVANCE, No. 5 at p. 6) NEMA stated that, while the method is not used often since such lamps are not high volume, the method should be maintained because it improves throughput time in the laboratory. (NEMA, No. 7 at p. 5) LEDVANCE stated it did not employ the peak lumen method but had no objection to its use. (LEDVANCE, No. 5 at p. 6)
IES LM-9 states that through careful correlation tests it may be possible to relate peak to stabilized lumens by a constant that would be unique to each lamp type. IES LM-9 goes on to explain
For GSFLs, DOE proposes to state that lamps must be seasoned and stabilized in accordance with sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 of IES LM-9. These proposed updates only specify the exact sections of an industry standard and would not change current requirements of the DOE test procedure.
In the August 2017 RFI, DOE requested information on allowing only the integrating sphere method and no longer allowing the goniophotometer (the combination of a goniometer and photometer) method for taking photometric measurements of GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs. 82 FR 37031, 37035. Additionally, DOE requested comments on how frequently the industry uses the average intensity distribution curve method, which is the calculation of total lumen output based on the intensity measurements taken using the goniophotometer method for determining lumen output of IRLs. DOE received several comments on these topics.
NEMA supported, and LEDVANCE did not object to, allowing the goniophotometer and average intensity distribution curve methods in addition to the integrating sphere method. NEMA preferred to maintain the option of testing with a goniometer
CA IOUs stated their belief that, because GSLs are defined to include GSILs, CFLs, and general service LED lamps and all three lamp types will be subject to the same standard DOE should strive to harmonize test methods, where possible. Because only the integrating sphere method is allowed for CFLs and integrated LED lamps, the CA IOUs expressed support for allowing only this method for measuring light output of GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 2)
Because alternative methods of measurement may provide logistical flexibility, even though they are little-used, DOE proposes to continue to allow the average intensity distribution method for reflector lamps and goniophotometers for all lamps in addition to the integrating sphere method. Thus, the proposal makes no change to the current test procedure. DOE proposes to specify that initial lumen output measurements be taken in accordance with section 7.0 in IES LM-9 for GSFLs, section 7.0 in IES LM-45 for GSILs, and section 7.0 or 8.0 in IES LM-20 for IRLs.
Additionally, for reflector lamps, DOE proposes to require measuring initial lumen output rather than total forward lumens (as it is currently described in Appendix R). DOE most recently discussed measuring an IRL's total forward lumens more than twenty years ago in a test procedure final rule published on May 29, 1997. 62 FR 29222, 29235. In that rulemaking proceeding, NEMA commented that the light output for IRLs should be measured as total forward lumens. 62 FR 29222, 29235. In a final rule published June 13, 1995, in response to a letter from NEMA containing a similar request for measurement in total forward lumens, the FTC amended its labeling requirements for IRLs to clarify “total forward lumens,” instead of lumens “at beam spread.” 60 FR 31077, 31079-31080. FTC concluded that light output disclosure should reflect useable light output reflected forward, and not merely forward light focused within the more narrow “beam spread” of the particular lamp. 60 FR 31077, 31080. Neither IES LM-20-2013 nor IESNA LM-20-1994 uses the term “forward lumens.” However, based on FTC's amendment, DOE tentatively finds that, because a reflector lamp is designed to focus lumens in a specific direction rather than in all directions, the term “total forward lumens” has the same meaning as “initial lumen output.” To align terminology with other lamp test procedures (
DOE proposes to include a test method for determining CRI for lamps that use incandescent technology. Because there is a minimum CRI requirement for GSILs (see 10 CFR 430.32(x)(1)), and manufacturers are required to certify CRI values for GSILs (see 10 CFR 429.27(b)(2)(iii)), DOE proposes to include a test method for determining CRI of GSILs in Appendix R. In addition, the Energy Independence and Security Act (“EISA”) of 2007 established a CRI requirement for IRLs.
For GSFLs, Appendix R currently requires CRI to be determined in accordance with CIE 13.3. (Section 4.4.1 of Appendix R). For completeness, DOE proposes to state that, in addition to CIE 13.3, the CRI of GSFLs be determined in accordance with section 7.6 in IES LM-9.
Currently Appendix R requires CCT for GSFLs to be determined in accordance with IES LM-9, and CCT for incandescent lamps to be determined in accordance with CIE 15.
To improve the organization of the appendix, DOE proposes to create a section called “Test Method for Determining Time to Failure for General Service Incandescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps” and subsections, “Test Conditions and Setup,” and “Test Methods, Measurements, and Calculations.” To clarify the existing test method for determining the time to failure of GSILs and adopt the same test method for determining time to failure of IRLs, DOE proposes to include information on test conditions, seasoning and stabilization, and remove information not pertinent to determining the time to failure value of the lamp.
Currently Appendix R requires measuring lifetime of GSILs in accordance with IES LM-49 and does not provide a test procedure for measuring lifetime of IRLs. DOE proposes to measure lifetime of IRLs in accordance with IES LM-49 and use the same methods as for GSIL lifetime testing. To improve the clarity of the existing instructions for GSIL lifetime testing and the proposed instructions for IRL lifetime testing, DOE proposes to reference specific sections of the industry standards to execute the steps in determining lifetime for GSILs and IRLs. To specify the ambient, physical, and electrical conditions, DOE proposes to reference sections 4.0 and 5.0 of IES LM-49. DOE also proposes to specify that the lamps must be seasoned and stabilized and reference section 6.2 of IES LM-45 for these procedures. Also, as explained in section 1, DOE is proposing to replace “lifetime” with the term “time to failure,” which would be defined as the time elapsed between first use and the point at which the lamp ceases to produce measurable lumen output (see section 1). This provides more precision regarding the point at which measurements must be taken. Further, DOE proposes to require measuring “time to failure” in accordance with section 6.0 of IES LM-49 (see section 1). (DOE is also proposing to use the term “time to failure” to describe the represented value for lifetime; see section III.D). Additionally, because accelerated lifetime testing is described in section 6.4 of the latest version of IES LM-49 proposed for adoption in this notice, DOE proposes to update the existing reference to section 6.1 to be section 6.4 of IES LM-49 in the provision disallowing accelerated testing. Finally, because it relates to the standard rather than the test procedure, DOE proposes to remove language stating that the lamp will be deemed to meet minimum rated lifetime standards if greater than 50 percent of the sample size meets the minimum rated lifetime from appendix R.
DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed updates would not change current requirements for testing lifetime of GSILs, as the updates only explicitly state certain steps of the referenced industry standard for determining time to failure for incandescent lamps and provide the associated section references to an industry test standard already incorporated by reference. DOE tentatively determines that because the proposed requirements for testing lifetime of IRLs reference IES LM-49, the industry standard for testing lifetime of incandescent lamps, they are not substantively different from those manufacturers are currently using to conduct this test.
NEMA recommended DOE adopt industry test standards “without modification” because testing according to both modified industry test standards in DOE test procedures and to original industry test standards for other programs such as ENERGY STAR or the State of California's standards increases burden. NEMA added that following a single test procedure for all these programs minimizes risk of errors. (NEMA, No. 7 at p. 2) Philips agreed, citing the test lab costs for setting up protocols for modified industry test standards and the potential of erroneously using the modified industry test standard to test a product for non-DOE purposes. (Philips, No. 8 at p. 2) LEDVANCE agreed, adding that adopting industry test standards without modification streamlines and simplifies testing requirements. (LEDVANCE, No. 5 at p. 6)
In this document, DOE is only updating referenced industry test standards to the latest versions and including more specific section references of these industry test standards. Further, the potential of adopting a test procedure that is different from other programs should not add to test burden for these lamp types. Because the ENERGY STAR program does not include lamps that operate on an external ballast, its test method would not apply to the GSFLs subject to DOE's test procedures. ENERGY STAR also does not include any incandescent lamp types.
DOE proposes to modify language in 10 CFR 429.27, which sets forth the sampling, certification, and rounding requirements for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs, to improve clarity and organization and ensure it supports the labeling requirements for lamps established by the FTC. DOE also proposes changes to definitions in 10 CFR 430.2 to align better with terminology proposed in Appendix R and 10 CFR part 429. Further, DOE proposes to separate each lamp type by creating two new sections in 10 CFR part 429. This will add clarity and allow DOE to treat represented values differently depending on the product. Although the paragraphs below describe changes to 10 CFR 429.27, the changes for each lamp type will appear in separate sections in 10 CFR part 429. DOE also proposes to revise 10 CFR 429.33 to replace references to 10 CFR 429.27 with references to the proposed, separate sections for each lamp type.
To provide further clarity to the test procedure DOE is making several updates to definitions including revising the definition of “basic model;” references and definition of “rated;” and updating definitions of different IRL types.
DOE proposes to update the definition of “basic model” in 10 CFR 430.2 to replace “lumens per watt (lm/W)” with “lamp efficacy.” This improves clarity by using the name of the metric instead of the unit of measure. Lamp efficacy is already defined elsewhere in 10 CFR
DOE proposes to replace references of “rated lumen output” and “rated lifetime” in 10 CFR 429.27 with, respectively, “initial lumen output” and “lifetime.” The term “rated” can lead to misunderstanding to the extent a reader interprets it as a standardized value rather than one that is determined through measurements. DOE requests comments on replacing “rated lumen output” and “rated lifetime” with, respectively, “initial lumen output” and “lifetime.”
The term “rated lifetime for general service incandescent lamps” is defined in 10 CFR 430.2 in relevant part as “the length of operating time of a sample of lamps,” as defined in 10 CFR 429.27, “between first use and failure of 50 percent of the sample size,” as determined in accordance with Appendix R. To align with proposed requirements in 10 CFR 429.27 for determining lifetime, DOE proposes to remove the term “rated.” Additionally, because the term “lifetime” rather than “lifetime for general service incandescent lamps” is used in 10 CFR 429.27, DOE also proposes to remove “for general service incandescent lamps.” DOE also proposes to modify the definition to “the length of operating time between first use and failure of 50 percent of the sample units (as specified in 10 CFR 429.27 of this chapter), determined in accordance with the test procedures described in Appendix R to subpart B of this part.”
“Rated wattage” for GSILs and IRLs is defined in 10 CFR 430.2 as the electrical power measured according to Appendix R. If there is no lamp datasheet for a type of GSFL in one of the referenced ANSI standards, “rated wattage” for GSFLs is defined as the electrical power of a lamp when measured according to the test procedures outlined in Appendix R. To align with 10 CFR 429.27, DOE proposes to clarify this definition by replacing the references to Appendix R with references to the relevant sections in 10 CFR part 429 and replacing “electrical power” with “initial input power.” DOE requests comments on the proposed definition of “lifetime” and modification to the definition of “rated wattage” in 10 CFR 430.2.
In the provisions for determining the represented value of rated wattage for GSFLs, GSILs, and IRLs, DOE proposes to change to “rated wattage” in any current references to “rated lamp wattage,” for consistency within 10 CFR part 429 and to conform to the relevant term used in the energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 430.32.
Finally, in the provisions for determining the rated wattage of GSILs, DOE proposes to change how to determine the 95-percent upper confidence limit from using a two-tailed confidence interval to a one-tailed confidence interval. A two-tailed confidence interval test is typically utilized to determine whether a set of results could be either higher or lower while a one-tailed confidence interval test is typically utilized to determine whether a set of results are going in one specific direction (
On May 1, 2020 DOE published an RFI document seeking comments to inform its determination of whether the standards for IRLs need to be amended. 85 FR 25326. In response to the RFI, DOE received several comments on the definitions of different types of IRLs. CA IOUs recommended that DOE update the industry references in 10 CFR 430.2 for the definitions of bulged parabolic reflector (“BPAR”), reflector (“R”)20, elliptical reflector (“ER”), and bulged reflector (“BR”) lamps with the latest versions of ANSI C78.21-2011(R2016)
DOE agrees with CA IOUs and NEMA on updating the CFR references with the latest versions of the currently referenced industry standards. Therefore, in this notice, DOE proposes to update the definitions in 10 CFR 430.2 for the BPAR, R20, ER, and BR incandescent reflector lamps with references to the latest versions of the currently referenced industry standards. Additionally, DOE is proposing definitions for R and parabolic aluminized reflector (“PAR”) incandescent reflector lamps that reference ANSI C78.21-2011 (R2016). Accordingly, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference ANSI C78.21-2011 (R2016) and ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) for 10 CFR 430.2.
DOE proposes certain clarifying and organizational modifications to the sampling provisions in 10 CFR 429.27(a). First, to be consistent with sampling requirement language for other lamp types (
DOE also proposes to require using the same sample of units as the basis for representations for all metrics for each basic model.
DOE proposes to change the minimum sample size from 21 lamps to 10 lamps and to remove the requirement that a minimum of three lamps be selected from each month of production for a minimum of 7 out of a 12-month period. Removing the latter provision would reduce confusion and burden. First, the 12-month requirement has led to confusion among manufacturers who interpreted this to mean DOE requires re-testing every calendar year. Second, selecting a few sample units from multiple months of the year can be difficult to coordinate and execute. In particular, if a manufacturer does not initially know the number of months in
Because sample units would no longer have to be selected over a 12-month period, DOE is also proposing to remove the requirement in 10 CFR 429.12(e)(2) to submit an initial certification report prior to or concurrent with the distribution of a new basic model for GSFLs and IRLs. Instead, for GSFLs and IRLs, the complete certification report described in 10 CFR 429.12(b) would be required at that time. In addition, DOE expects that a manufacturer would complete the testing needed to submit a certification of compliance with standards prior to distribution in commerce, so a subsequent report would not be needed to reflect additional test results. DOE requests comments on its proposal to remove the submission of an initial certification report for GSFLs and IRLs.
DOE proposes to add specifications for determining the represented values of certain metrics. Under the FTC lighting facts labeling requirement, manufacturers of GSILs and IRLs are required to include on the lamp packaging basic and consistent information, including lumen output, wattage, life, CCT, and costs of annual energy consumption. 16 CFR 305.23(b) In support of FTC labeling requirements for GSILs and IRLs, DOE proposes adding determinations for the represented values of life (in years), estimated annual energy cost (in dollars per year), CCT, wattage (for IRLs only), and initial lumen output (for IRLs only).
Specifically, DOE proposes represented values of life (in years) for GSILs and IRLs be determined by dividing the represented lifetime of these lamps as determined by DOE requirements in 10 CFR part 429 by the estimated annual operating hours as specified by FTC in 16 CFR 305.23(b)(3)(iii). To support this calculation, DOE proposes that lifetime for IRLs be determined as equal to or less than the median time to failure of the sample. DOE proposes represented values of estimated annual energy cost (in dollars per year) for GSILs and IRLs be determined in accordance with FTC requirements (
Additionally, DOE's current test procedure for GSFLs includes measurement of wattage and CCT and in this notice DOE is proposing a test procedure for measuring CRI of IRLs (see section III.C.3). To support these test procedures, DOE proposes to provide instructions on determining the represented values for wattage and CCT of GSFLs and CRI for IRLs. Because consumers would favor a higher value for CRI, DOE proposes represented values of CRI for IRLs be determined as less than or equal to the lower of the mean or the lower confidence limit of the sample. DOE proposes the represented value of wattage and CCT for GSFLs be determined as the mean of the sample. Because GSFL wattage and CCT are used to determine which lamps are subject to DOE standards, the mean (average) of measured values is appropriate and confidence limits need not be applied.
Further, DOE is proposing revisions to the existing represented value determinations of initial lumen output for GSILs and CRI for GSFLs. DOE proposes to revise the current instruction to average the measurements of lumen output for GSILs. Because GSIL energy conservation standards are based on initial lumen output and consumers would favor a higher value for this metric, DOE proposes the represented initial lumen output be less than or equal to the lower of the mean or the lower confidence limit. DOE proposes to revise the current instruction to apply the lower confidence limit to determine CRI for GSFLs. Because CRI can determine which lamps are subject to DOE standards, the mean (average) of measured values is appropriate and confidence limits need not be applied. DOE proposes the represented value of CRI for GSFLs to be determined as the mean of the sample.
Finally, DOE is proposing changes to clarify the determination of the represented value of lifetime for GSILs. DOE proposes to remove language stating that lifetime is the length of operating time between first use and failure of 50 percent of the sample size. Instead DOE proposes to state that the represented value of lifetime is equal to or less than the median time to failure of the sample. For an odd sample size, the median time to failure is simply the middle unit's time to failure. For an even sample size, it is the arithmetic mean of the time to failure of the two middle samples. DOE also proposes this clarified determination of represented value of lifetime for IRLs.
In line with the proposed amendments to sampling requirements (see section III.D.2), DOE is proposing to remove the requirement to report production dates of units tested for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs. Additionally, DOE is proposing to clarify currently reported values for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs by removing “12-month average” from the description.
Further to align with the proposed method of referencing wattage (see section III.D.1), DOE is clarifying the description of “lamp wattage” so that it instead reads as “rated wattage” for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs. To align with proposed method of referencing lifetime (see section III.D.1), DOE is clarifying the description of “average minimum rated lifetime” so that it instead reads as “lifetime” for GSILs.
For completeness and clarity, DOE proposes to specify rounding requirements for all represented values. DOE proposes to require rounding initial input power to the nearest tenth of a watt, initial lumen output to three
DOE proposes to move the rounding requirements for lamp efficacy and CCT from Appendix R to part 429. DOE also proposes to consolidate all rounding provisions in a single paragraph in the relevant product-specific section in part 429, subpart B.
Test procedures and measurements for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs are specified in 10 CFR 430.23(r). This section includes calculations and appropriate section references to Appendix R for determining annual energy consumption, lamp efficacy, CRI, and lifetime for GSFLs, GSILs, and IRLs, as applicable. Because calculations for determining these metrics are already established in Appendix R, DOE proposes to remove them from § 430.23(r). Additionally, DOE proposes to reference Appendix R in general rather than specifying sections, so that any future amendments to sections in Appendix R do not require changes in 10 CFR 430.23(r). Finally, DOE proposes to remove all references to annual energy consumption as this metric is not required by DOE. DOE proposes to replace the current language in 10 CFR 430.23(r) with a requirement to measure initial lumen output, initial input power, initial lamp efficacy, CRI, CCT, and time to failure in accordance with Appendix R.
To avoid confusion and align with the proposed new terminology for Appendix R and 10 CFR 429.27, DOE proposes to modify certain terms related to the energy conservation standards for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs. The tables in 10 CFR 430.32(n)(6) and 10 CFR 430.32(x) provide the energy conservation standards for IRLs and GSILs, respectively, where the wattage terms are measured values. For IRLs, DOE proposes to change “rated lamp wattage” to be “rated wattage” in 10 CFR 430.32(n)(6). Also, in existing footnote 1 in the table in 10 CFR 430.32(n)(6), DOE proposes to specify the “P” in the minimum standard equation as “rated wattage” rather than “rated lamp wattage.” For GSILs, DOE proposes to change the term “maximum rate wattage” to “maximum rated wattage” in 10 CFR 430.32(x).
Further, for GSIL standards in 10 CFR 430.32(x), DOE proposes to remove the term “rated” from “rated lumen ranges” and add an explanatory footnote to use the measured initial lumen output to determine the applicable lumen range. Finally, DOE proposes to remove the term “rate” from “minimum rate lifetime” and add an explanatory footnote stating to use lifetime determined in accordance with 10 CFR 429.27 to assess compliance with this standard. The use of “initial lumen output” and “lifetime” aligns with the proposed terminology for Appendix R and 10 CFR 429.27. DOE tentatively finds that the proposed changes to terminology in GSFL, IRL and GSIL energy conservation standards do not change the existing requirements but only clarify how measured values relate to the requirements in § 430.32.
Additionally, DOE proposes to remove the lamp efficacy requirements for GSFLs manufactured after May 1, 1994, and November 1, 1995, and on or before July 14, 2012, listed in 10 CFR 430.32(n)(1) and for IRLs manufactured after November 1, 1995, and on or before July 14, 2012, listed in 10 CFR 430.32(n)(5). Eight years ago, new standards superseded these standards, and there are likely no units on the market to which they apply.
Finally, DOE proposes to change the subparagraph numbering in 10 CFR 430.32(x) as follows: 10 CFR 430.32(x)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) to respectively 10 CFR 430.32(x)(2) and (3); and subsequently renumber 10 CFR 430.32(x)(2) and (3) to 10 CFR 430.32(x)(4) and (5). This will reduce any confusion that standards under these subparagraphs are applicable only for lamps that fall under 10 CFR 430.32(x)(1)(iii).
DOE received several comments regarding the test burden resulting from updated test procedures for GSFLs, GSILs, and IRLs.
NEMA and LEDVANCE stated that to reduce test burden DOE should eliminate the annual sampling, testing, and reporting requirement for GSFL, GSIL, and IRL basic models and require only reporting to CCMS when products change, or are removed from or introduced into the market. (NEMA, No. 7 at p. 6; LEDVANCE, No. 5 at p. 6)
DOE does not require manufacturers to retest a basic model annually. The initial test results used to generate a certified rating for a basic model remain valid as long as the basic model has not been modified from the tested design in a way that makes it less efficient or more consumptive, which would require a change to the certified rating. 10 CFR 429.12(e). If a manufacturer has modified a basic model in a way that makes it more efficient or less consumptive, new testing is required only if the manufacturer wishes to make representations of the new, more efficient rating. DOE does require that manufacturers report certified values for a basic model even if the previously submitted certified value has not changed and retesting is not required. See 10 CFR 429.12(a). Because this should only entail resubmitting existing documents, DOE has tentatively concluded that the test burden of this requirement is minimal.
NEMA, LEDVANCE, and Philips stated that amending test procedures will not induce manufacturers to undertake any innovation efforts for these products. NEMA and LEDVANCE added that any amendments to test procedures could increase, rather than decrease, test burden. LEDVANCE added that all its research and development is being conducted in SSL products. Along these lines, NEMA stated that DOE should carefully consider burden when determining whether to update test procedures for highly mature products. (NEMA, No. 7 at p. 6, LEDVANCE, No. 5 at p. 7; Philips, No. 8 at p. 3) CA IOUs stated that, where there are conflicts, inaccuracies or outdated references, DOE should make updates to test procedures as needed regardless of perceived test procedure burdens. CA IOUs asserted that test procedures should be comprehensive and reflect real-world usage or would become burdensome in the long-term, particularly as multiple product standards evolve such as the ENERGY STAR®, California Title 20 requirements, and California Title 24 requirements. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at pp. 1-2)
DOE's proposed updates to its test procedures in Appendix R and associated sections to update references to industry test standards and to clarify the language and organization of the test procedures are not related to product innovation. DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed updates will not increase test burden. As discussed in section III.B, updates in the
DOE requests comment on its tentative determination that its proposed updates for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs will not increase test burden because determining these values to ascertain compliance with applicable DOE standards or FTC labeling requirements is already required by regulation and/or statute.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs by updating to the latest versions of the referenced industry test standards and providing cites to specific sections of these standards; providing further specifications for definitions, test conditions, test methods, and measurement procedures; clarifying test frequency and inclusion of cathode power in measurements; revising the sampling requirements; aligning sampling and certification requirements with proposed test procedure terminology; providing a test method for measuring the CRI of incandescent lamps and for measuring lifetime of incandescent reflector lamps; and allowing manufacturers to make voluntary (optional) representations of GSFLs at high frequency settings. DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed amendments to the GSFL, IRL, and GSIL test procedures, if finalized, would impact testing costs as shown in Table III.3 and Table III.4.
Further discussion of the cost impacts of the proposed test procedure amendments are presented in the following paragraphs.
The proposed amendments are primarily providing updates and clarifications for how to conduct the test procedure and do not add complexity to test conditions/setup or add test steps. For example, this notice adds references to specific sections of industry test standards to provide precise direction when conducting the test procedure. Proposed revisions to definitions and test conditions only clarify the test method. Further, the proposed reorganization and alignment of terminology among relevant sections of the CFR improves readability and provides clarity throughout the sampling requirements, test procedure, and applicable energy conservation standards.
DOE is proposing to specify the frequency for testing and whether cathode heat is included in measurements. DOE's proposal reflects the stated direction in industry test standards referenced by the current test procedure and also standard industry practice as verified by product submissions in CCMS. Because DOE is specifying details that are already required or in use, DOE tentatively concludes that there are no costs incurred due to this proposal.
Although DOE notes that it has proposed a test method for measuring the CRI of incandescent lamps and measuring lifetime of incandescent reflector lamps, testing for these metrics is already required by DOE, EISA 2007, or FTC. As such, manufacturers already conduct this test for covered products. The method of measuring CRI has not changed substantively in over 20 years (the referenced industry test standard was last updated in 1995) and therefore the method of measurement used by manufacturers is likely substantively similar to DOE's proposed method. Further, the data required for CRI can be gathered via an integrating sphere at the same time the sphere is used to measure lumen output. Thus, the data to determine CRI can be gathered while measuring a quantity that is used in a metric already reported to DOE (
DOE is proposing to change the minimum sample size to 10 lamps instead of 21 lamps. Because current certifications already must be based on a sample size of more than 10 units, products currently certified to DOE would not have to be retested as a result of this change. However, manufacturers would be able to use the new sampling requirements, if made final, when new products are introduced and certified to DOE. Based on a review of submission dates for GSFL, IRL, and GSIL basic models in DOE's CCMS database, DOE determined the number of new model certifications for 2016-2018, the past three full years of certification. An average of 196 GSFL, 30 IRL, and 84 GSIL new models were certified over these years. The cost to test efficacy, CCT, and CRI at a third party laboratory is $90 per unit for a GSFL and $75 per unit for an IRL or GSIL. Based on feedback from laboratories, a reduction in sample size would not change costs for lifetime testing for GSILs. Thus, DOE estimates the annual savings for GSFLs due to reduced sample size requirements to be $193,710, for IRLs $24,475 and for GSILs $69,025.
DOE did not include any administrative cost savings associated with the removal of the requirement that the sample include a minimum of three lamps from each month of production for a minimum of 7 out of the 12-month period. DOE requests comments from stakeholders on the magnitude of savings from such a change, if any.
DOE has also proposed to allow manufacturers to make voluntary representations of certain GSFLs. DOE proposes that manufacturers can voluntarily make representations at the high frequency settings specified in the 2016 versions of ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901 in accordance with test procedures specified in Appendix R and sampling requirements in 10 CFR 429.27. These values would not be used for compliance but rather would be in addition to values obtained for compliance and used for determining if and how standards for GSFLs should be amended to accommodate testing at high frequency settings. While this proposed test method is voluntary and would only be used for representations of efficacy at high frequency reference ballast settings, it is unclear how many manufacturers would use it to make representations. DOE requests comments, data, and information regarding what percent of industry may choose to make representations at these conditions.
DOE has initially determined that the proposed amendments discussed above would not require changes to the designs of GSFLs, IRLs, or GSILs, and that the proposed amendments would not impact the utility of such products or impact the availability of GSFL, IRL, or GSIL products. DOE expects that the proposed amendments would not impact the representations of GSFL, IRL, or GSIL energy efficiency. DOE expects that manufacturers would be able to rely on data generated under the current test procedure should the proposed amendments be finalized. As such, DOE does not expect retesting of GSFLs, IRLs, or GSILs would be required solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the proposed amendments to the test procedure.
DOE requests comment on its understanding of the estimated cost impact and its finding that manufacturers would experience cost savings associated with these proposed amendments.
DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards as DOE test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or estimated operating costs of that product during a representative average use cycle or period of use. Section 8(c) of appendix A of 10 CFR part 430 subpart C; see also 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). In cases where the industry standard does not meet EPCA statutory criteria for test procedures, DOE will make modifications through the rulemaking process to these standards as the DOE test procedure.
DOE is proposing to update to the latest versions of several industry test standards referenced in Appendix R. For the electrical and photometric measurements of GSFLs DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference IES LM-9-2020, ANSI C78.375A-2014 (R2020), ANSI C82.3-2016, ANSI C78.81-2016 (voluntary representations only) and ANSI C78.901-2016 (voluntary representations only). For the electrical and photometric measurements of IRLs, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference IES LM-20-2020. For electrical and photometric measurements of GSILs, DOE is proposing to incorporate IES LM-45-2020 and for lifetime measurements of GSILs, IES LM-49-2020. For spectroradiometric measurements of GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs, DOE is proposing to incorporate IES LM-58-2020. For CCT measurements for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs, DOE is proposing to incorporate CIE 15:2018. For seasoning instructions for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs, DOE is proposing to incorporate IES LM-54-2020. For integrated sphere measurements for GSILs and GSFLs, DOE is proposing to incorporate IES LM-78-2020. In addition to references to industry test standards, DOE is proposing the following general instructions: The DOE test procedure takes precedence when there are conflicting requirements between it and referenced industry test standards; the same lamp orientation should be maintained throughout testing; and defective lamps should be replaced with new units.
The industry test standards DOE proposes to incorporate by reference via amendments described in this notice are discussed in further detail in section II.B of this NOPR. DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments in this notice are not unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE requests comments on the benefits and burdens of the proposed updates and additions to industry test standards referenced in the test procedure for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs.
EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure, beginning 180 days after publication of such a test procedure final rule in the
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE reviewed this proposed rule to amend the test procedures for GSFLs, GSILs, and IRLs under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is set forth in the following paragraphs.
The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) considers a business entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. The size standards and codes are established by the 2017 North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”).
GSFL, GSIL, and IRL manufacturers are classified under NAICS code 335110, electric lamp bulb and part manufacturing. The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small business for this NAICS code. DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking. DOE used DOE's Compliance Certification Database to identify basic models of GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs. DOE then used other publicly available data sources, such as California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System and company specific product literature, to create a list of companies that import or otherwise manufacture the GSFL, IRL, and GSIL models covered by this rulemaking. Using these sources, DOE identified a total of 20 distinct companies that import or manufacture GSFLs, IRLs, or GSILs in the United States.
DOE then reviewed these companies to determine whether the entities met the SBA's definition of a “small business” as it relates to NAICS code 335110 and screened out any companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a “small business,” or are foreign owned and operated. DOE did not identify any small businesses that manufacture GSFLs, IRLs, or GSILs in the United States.
Because DOE identified no small businesses that manufacture GSFLs, IRLs, or GSILs in the United States, DOE tentatively concludes that the impacts of the test procedure amendments proposed in this NOPR would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. DOE will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
DOE requests comments on its tentative determination that there are no small businesses that manufacture GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs in the United States.
Manufacturers of GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”) and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include a categorical exclusion for rulemakings interpreting or amending an existing rule or regulation that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation being amended. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, Appendix A5. DOE anticipates that this rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion A5 because it is an interpretive rulemaking that does not change the environmental effect of the rule and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final rule.
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency of GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the FTC concerning the impact of the commercial or industry test standards on competition.
The modifications to the test procedure for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs proposed in this document incorporate the following industry standards:
(1) ANSI Standard C78.21, “American National Standard for Electric Lamps—PAR and R Shapes,” 2011 (R2016);
(2) ANSI Standard C78.79, “American National Standard for Electric Lamps—Nomenclature for Envelope Shapes Intended for Use with Electric Lamps,” 2014 (R2020);
(3) ANSI C78.375A, “American National Standard for Electric Lamps—Fluorescent Lamps—Guide for Electrical Measures,” 2014 (R2020);
(4) ANSI Standard C78.81, “American National Standard for Electric Lamps—Double-Capped Fluorescent Lamps—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics,” 2016;
(5) ANSI Standard C78.901, “American National Standard for Electric Lamps—Single-Based Fluorescent Lamps—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics,” 2016;
(6) ANSI_ANSLG C81.61, “American National Standard for electrical lamp bases—Specifications for Bases (Caps) for Electric Lamps,” 2006;
(7) ANSI C82.3, “American National Standard for Lamp Ballasts—Reference Ballasts for Fluorescent Lamps,” 2016;
(8) IES Test Method LM-9, “ANSI/IES LM-9-2020—Approved Method: Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Fluorescent Lamps,” 2020;
(9) IES LM-20, “ANSI/IES LM-20-20 Approved Method: Photometry of Reflector Type Lamps,” 2020;
(10) IES LM-45, “ANSI/IES LM-45-20 Approved Method: Electrical and Photometric Measurement of General Service Incandescent Filament Lamps,” 2020;
(11) IES LM-49, “ANSI/IES LM-49-20 Approved Method: Life Testing of Incandescent Filament Lamps,” 2020;
(12) IES Test Method LM-54, “ANSI/IES LM-54-20 Approved Method: IES Guide to Lamp Seasoning,” 2020;
(13) IES LM-58, “ANSI/IES LM-58-20 Approved Method: Spectroradiometric Measurements Methods for Lighting Sources,” 2020;
(14) IESNA LM-78, “ANSI/IES LM-78-20 Approved Method: Total Luminous Flux Measurement of Lamps Using an Integrating Sphere Photometer,” 2020; and
(15) CIE 15:2018, “Colorimetry, 4th Edition,” 2018.
DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by ANSI, titled “ANSI C78.21-2011 (R2016) Revision of ANSI C78.21-2011, American National Standard for Incandescent Lamps—PAR and R Shapes,” ANSI Standard ANSI C78.21-2011 (R2016). ANSI C78.21-2011 (R2016) is an industry accepted test standard that provides physical and electrical characteristics of the group of incandescent lamps that have PAR and R bulb shapes. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references sections of ANSI C78.21-2011 (R2016) for definitions of incandescent reflector lamps. ANSI C78.21-2011 (R2016) is readily available on ANSI's website at
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by ANSI, titled “ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) Revision of ANSI C78.79-2014, American National Standard for Electric Lamps—Nomenclature for Envelope Shapes Intended for Use with Electric Lamps,” ANSI Standard ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020). ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) is an industry accepted test standard that describes a system of nomenclature that provides designations for envelope shapes used for all electric lamps. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references sections of ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) for definitions of incandescent reflector lamps. ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) is readily available on ANSI's website at
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by ANSI, titled “ANSI_ANSLG C81.61-2006, Revision of ANSI C81.61-2005, American National Standard for electric lamp bases—Specifications for Bases (Caps) for Electric Lamps,” ANSI Standard C81.61-2006. ANSI C81.61-2006 is an industry accepted standard that sets forth the specification for bases (caps) used on electric lamps. The standard is currently used to specify GSILs with certain bases that are not subject to standards in 10 CFR 430.32. In this NOPR ANSI C81.61-2006 is being approved for use in 10 CFR 430.32. ANSI C81.61-2006 is readily available on ANSI's website at
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by ANSI, titled “ANSI C78.375A-2014 (R2020) Revision of ANSI C78.375-2014, American National Standard for Electric Lamps-Fluorescent Lamps-Guide for Electrical Measures,” ANSI Standard C78.375A-2014 (R2020). ANSI C78.375A-2014 (R2020) is an industry accepted test standard that describes procedures for measuring the electrical characteristics of fluorescent lamps. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references sections of ANSI C78.375A-2014 (R2020) for voltage and current conditions when testing performance of fluorescent lamps. ANSI C78.375A-2014 (R2020) is readily available on ANSI's website at
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by ANSI, titled “American National Standard for Lamp Ballasts—Reference Ballasts for Fluorescent Lamps,” ANSI Standard C82.3-2016. ANSI C82.3 is an industry accepted standard that describes characteristics and requirements of
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by ANSI, titled “American National Standard for Electric Lamps—Double-Capped Fluorescent Lamps—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics,” ANSI Standard C78.81-2016. ANSI C78.81 is an industry accepted standard that provides electrical characteristics for double base fluorescent lamps and reference ballasts. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references ANSI C78.81 for reference ballast settings to test the performance of fluorescent lamps using high frequency reference ballast settings for making voluntary representations to DOE. ANSI C78.81 is readily available on ANSI's website at
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by ANSI, titled “American National Standard for Electric Lamps—Single-Based Fluorescent Lamps—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics,” ANSI Standard C78.901-2016. ANSI C78.901 is an industry accepted standard that provides electrical characteristics for single base fluorescent lamps and reference ballasts. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references ANSI C78.901 for reference ballast settings to test the performance of fluorescent lamps using high frequency reference ballast settings for making voluntary representations to DOE. ANSI C78.901 is readily available on ANSI's website at
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test method published by IES, titled “ANSI/IES LM-9-2020—Approved Method: Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Fluorescent Lamps,” IES Test Method LM-9. IES LM-9 is an industry accepted standard that describes methods for taking electrical and photometric measurements of fluorescent lamps. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references IES LM-9 for testing the performance of general service fluorescent lamps. IES LM-9 is readily available on IES's website at
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test method published by IES, titled “ANSI/IES LM-20-20 Approved Method: Photometry of Reflector Type Lamps,” IES Test Method LM-20. IES LM-20 is an industry accepted standard that describes methods for taking electrical and photometric measurements of reflector lamps. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references IES LM-20 for testing the performance of incandescent reflector lamps. IES LM-20 is readily available on IES's website at
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test method published by IES, titled “Approved Method: Electrical and Photometric Measurement of General Service Incandescent Filament Lamps,” IES Test Method LM-45-2020. IES LM-45 is an industry accepted standard that describes methods for taking electrical and photometric measurements of general service incandescent filament lamps. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references IES LM-45 for testing the performance of incandescent lamps. IES LM-45 is readily available on IES's website at
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test method published by IES, titled “ANSI/IES LM-49-20 Approved Method: Life Testing of Incandescent Filament Lamps,” IES Test Method LM-49. IES LM-49 is an industry accepted standard that describes the method for determining the lifetime of an incandescent filament lamp. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references IES LM-49 for testing the lifetime of incandescent lamps. IES LM-49 is readily available on IES's website at
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test method published by IES, titled “ANSI/IES LM-58-20 Approved Method: Spectroradiometric Measurements Methods for Lighting Sources,” IES Test Method LM-58. IES LM-58 is an industry accepted standard that describes methods for taking spectroradiometric measurements for light sources. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references IES LM-58 for determining the CRI and CCT of fluorescent lamps and incandescent lamps and CRI of incandescent reflector lamps. IES LM-58 is readily available on IES's website at
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test method published by IESNA, titled “ANSI/IES LM-78-20 Approved Method: Total Luminous Flux Measurement of Lamps Using an Integrating Sphere Photometer,” IES Test Method LM-78. IES LM-78 is an industry accepted test standard that specifies a method for measuring lumen output in an integrating sphere. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references IES LM-20 for testing the performance of incandescent reflector lamps, which in turn references IES LM-78 for integrating sphere photometer calibration and measurements. IES LM-78 is readily available on IES's website at
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test method published by IES, titled “ANSI/IES LM-54-20 Approved Method: IES Guide to Lamp Seasoning,” IES Test Method LM-54. IES LM-54 is an industry accepted test standard that specifies a method for seasoning lamps. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references IES LM-9, IES LM-20, and IES LM-45 for testing the performance of respectively, GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs, which in turn references IES LM-54 for seasoning lamps. IES LM-54 is readily available on IES's website at
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test method published by CIE, titled “Colorimetry, 4th edition,” CIE 15:2018. CIE 15:2018 is an industry accepted test standard that specifies methods for taking color measurements. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references CIE 15:2018 for testing CCT. CIE 15:2018 is readily available on CIE's website at
In this NOPR, DOE included proposed revisions to the regulatory text of § 430.32 that contained a reference to ANSI C78.3. That standard was previously approved for incorporation by reference; no changes are proposed.
The time and date of the webinar are listed in the
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this notice, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The webinar/public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the webinar/public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the webinar/public meeting.
A transcript of the webinar/public meeting will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comments on its proposal to incorporate by reference the latest versions of ANSI C78.375, ANSI C82.3, IES LM-58, IES-LM-9, IES LM-45, IES LM-49, IES LM-20, IES LM-54, and IES LM-78, and CIE 15 for Appendix R. See section III.B.
(2) DOE requests comments on its proposal to maintain the currently referenced 2010 versions of ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901 for purposes of demonstrating compliance with standards. DOE also requests comments on its proposal to allow manufacturers to make voluntary representations of certain GSFLs in accordance with the 2016 versions of ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901. See section 1.
(3) DOE seeks comments on the usefulness of the proposed general clarifications regarding the frequency of operation and inclusion of cathode power and any associated impacts on test burden. DOE also seeks comments on whether the proposed changes are perceived as affecting the compliance of an existing product.
(4) DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions for “time to failure,” “initial lamp efficacy,” “initial lumen output,” “initial input power,” and updates to definitions of IRL lamp shapes and removal of definitions for “CCT,” “CRI,” “ANSI Standard,” “CIE,” and “IESNA.” See section 1.
(5) DOE requests comments on its proposed general instructions regarding conflicting requirements, lamp orientation, and lamp breakage. See section 2.
(6) DOE requests comments on its proposed section references in IES LM-9, IES LM-20, and IES LM-45 for establishing ambient, physical, and electrical conditions; and seasoning and stabilization. See section III.C.a.
(7) DOE requests comments on its proposed industry test standard references for measuring CCT and CRI. See section III.C.b.
(8) DOE requests comments on its proposed section references in IES LM-49 for establishing ambient, physical, and electrical conditions and measuring time to failure; and its proposed section references in IES LM-45 for seasoning and stabilization. See section 4.
(9) DOE requests comments on its proposed rounding requirements for initial input power, initial lumen output, CRI, CCT, and lifetime. See section 4.
(10) DOE requests comment on its tentative determination that its proposed updates for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs will not increase test burden because determining these values to ascertain compliance with applicable DOE standards or FTC labeling requirements is already required by regulation and/or statute.
(11) DOE requests comments on its proposed changes in 10 CFR 430.32 to align terminology with test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs. See section III.D
(12) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to base the 95 percent upper confidence limit determination for input power on the one-tail rather than the two-tail confidence interval. See section III.D
(13) DOE requests comments on replacing “rated lumen output” and “rated lifetime” with respectively, “initial lumen output” and “lifetime.” See section III.D.
(14) DOE requests comments on its proposed modifications to definitions for “lifetime” and “rated wattage.” See section III.D.
(15) DOE requests comments on its proposal to reduce the minimum sample size from 21 to 10 and remove the requirement that a minimum of three lamps be selected from each month of production for a minimum of 7 months out of a 12-month period. See section III.D
(16) DOE requests comments on its proposal to remove initial certification report submissions for GSFLs and IRLs. See section II.D.
(17) DOE requests comments from stakeholders on the magnitude of cost savings, if any, from removing the requirement that the sample include a minimum of three lamps from each month of production for a minimum of 7 out of the 12-month period. See section III.H.
(18) DOE requests comments, data, and information regarding what percent of industry may choose to make representations using high frequency ballast settings. See section III.H.
(19) DOE requests comment on its understanding of the estimated impact and its finding that manufacturers would experience cost savings associated with these proposed amendments. See section III.H.
(20) DOE requests comments on its tentative determination that there are no small businesses that manufacture GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs in the United States. See section IV.B.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 5, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend parts 429 and 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(a)
(1) Units to be tested. (i) When testing, use a sample comprised of production units. The same sample of units must be tested and used as the basis for representations for initial lumen output, rated wattage, color rendering index (CRI), correlated color temperature (CCT), and lifetime.
(ii) For each basic model, randomly select and test a sample of sufficient size, but not less than 10 units, to ensure that—
(A) Represented values of initial lumen output and CRI are less than or equal to the lower of:
(
Or,
(
(B) Represented values of rated wattage are greater than or equal to the higher of:
(
Or,
(
(2) Any represented values of measures of energy efficiency or energy consumption for all individual models represented by a given basic model must be the same.
(3) Represented values of CCT must be equal to the arithmetic mean of the sample.
(4) Represented values of lifetime must be equal to or less than the median time to failure of the sample (calculated as the arithmetic mean of the time to failure of the two middle sample units (or the value of the middle sample unit if there are an odd number of units) when the measured values are sorted in value order).
(5) Calculate represented values of life (in years) by dividing the represented lifetime of these lamps as determined in paragraph (a)(4) of this section by the estimated annual operating hours as specified in 16 CFR 305.23(b)(3)(iii).
(6) Represented values of the estimated annual energy cost, expressed in dollars per year, must be the product of the rated wattage in kilowatts, an electricity cost rate as specified in 16 CFR 305.23(b)(1)(ii), and an estimated average annual use as specified in 16 CFR 305.23(b)(1)(ii).
(b)
(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information: The testing laboratory's ILAC accreditation body's identification number or other approved identification assigned by the ILAC accreditation body, rated wattage in watts (W), the lifetime in hours, and CRI.
(c)
(1) Round rated wattage to the nearest tenth of a watt.
(2) Round initial lumen output to three significant digits.
(3) Round CCT to the nearest 100 kelvin (K).
(4) Round CRI to the nearest whole number.
(5) Round lifetime to the nearest whole hour.
(6) Round life (in years) to the nearest tenth.
(7) Round annual energy cost to the nearest cent.
(a)
(1) Units to be tested. (i) When testing, use a sample comprised of production units. The same sample of units must be tested and used as the basis for representations for initial lumen output, rated wattage, lamp efficacy, color rendering index (CRI), lifetime, and correlated color temperature (CCT).
(ii) For each basic model, randomly select and test a sample of sufficient size, but not less than 10 units, to ensure that represented values of average lamp efficacy, CRI, and initial lumen output are less than or equal to the lower of:
(A) The arithmetic mean of the sample;
Or,
(B) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by .97, where:
(2) Any represented values of measures of energy efficiency or energy consumption for all individual models represented by a given basic model must be the same.
(3) Represented values of CCT and rated wattage must be equal to the arithmetic mean of the sample.
(4) Represented values of lifetime must be equal to or less than the median time to failure of the sample (calculated as the arithmetic mean of the time to failure of the two middle sample units (or the value of the middle sample unit if there are an odd number of units) when the measured values are sorted in value order).
(5) Calculate represented values of life (in years) by dividing the represented lifetime of these lamps as determined in paragraph (a)(4) of this section by the estimated annual operating hours as specified in 16 CFR 305.23(b)(3)(iii).
(6) Represented values of the estimated annual energy cost, expressed in dollars per year, must be the product of the rated wattage in kilowatts, an electricity cost rate as specified in 16 CFR 305.23(b)(1)(ii), and an estimated average annual use as specified in 16 CFR 305.23(b)(1)(ii).
(b)
(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information: The testing laboratory's ILAC accreditation body's identification number or other approved identification assigned by the ILAC accreditation body, average lamp efficacy in lumens per watt (lm/W), and rated wattage in watts (W).
(c)
(1) Round rated wattage to the nearest tenth of a watt.
(2) Round initial lumen output to three significant digits.
(3) Round average lamp efficacy to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt.
(4) Round CCT to the nearest 100 kelvin (K).
(5) Round CRI to the nearest whole number.
(6) Round lifetime to the nearest whole hour.
(7) Round life (in years) to the nearest tenth.
(8) Round annual energy cost to the nearest cent.
(a)
(1) Units to be tested. (i) When testing, use a sample comprised of production units. The same sample of units must be tested and used as the basis for representations for rated wattage, average lamp efficacy, color rendering index (CRI), and correlated color temperature (CCT).
(ii) For each basic model, randomly select and test a sample of sufficient size, but not less than 10 units, to ensure that represented values of average lamp efficacy are less than or equal to the lower of:
(A) The arithmetic mean of the sample:
Or,
(B) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by .97, where:
(2) Any represented values of measures of energy efficiency or energy consumption for all individual models represented by a given basic model must be the same.
(3) Represented values of CCT, CRI and rated wattage must be equal to the arithmetic mean of the sample.
(b)
(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information: The testing laboratory's ILAC accreditation body's identification number or other approved identification assigned by the ILAC accreditation body, average lamp efficacy in lumens per watt (lm/W), rated wattage in watts (W), CCT in Kelvin (K), and CRI.
(c)
(1) Round rated wattage to the nearest tenth of a watt.
(2) Round average lamp efficacy to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt.
(3) Round CCT to the nearest 100 kelvin (K).
(4) Round CRI to the nearest whole number.
42 U.S.C.6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(1) With respect to general service fluorescent lamps, general service incandescent lamps, and incandescent reflector lamps: Lamps that have essentially identical light output and electrical characteristics—including lamp efficacy and color rendering index (CRI).
(1) * * *
(iii) If the lamp is neither listed in one of the ANSI standards referenced in paragraph (1)(i) of this definition, nor a residential straight-shaped lamp, a represented value of electrical power for a basic model, determined according to 10 CFR 429.66 of this chapter, and derived from the measured initial input power of a lamp tested according to appendix R to subpart B of this part.
(2) With respect to general service incandescent lamps, a represented value of electrical power for a basic model, determined according to 10 CFR 429.27 of this chapter, and derived from the measured initial input power of a lamp tested according to appendix R to subpart B of this part.
(3) With respect to incandescent reflector lamps, a represented value of electrical power for a basic model, determined according to 10 CFR 429.38 of this chapter, and derived from the measured initial input power of a lamp tested according to appendix R to subpart B of this part.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(3) ANSI C78.21-2011 (R2016), (“ANSI C78.21-2011 (R2016)”), American National Standard for Electric Lamps—PAR and R Shapes, approved August 23, 2016; IBR approved for § 430.2 to subpart B.
(4) ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020), (“ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020)”), American National Standard for Electric Lamps—Nomenclature for Envelope Shapes Intended for Use with Electric Lamps, approved January 17, 2020; IBR approved for § 430.2.
(7) ANSI C78.375A-2014 (R2020) Revision of ANSI C78.375-2014, (“ANSI C78.375A”) American National Standard for Electric Lamps-Fluorescent Lamps-Guide for Electrical Measures, approved January 17, 2020; IBR approved for appendix R to subpart B.
The standards referenced in paragraphs (e)(6), (8), (11), (15),
(l) * * *
(3) CIE 15:2018 (“CIE 15:2018”), Technical Report: Colorimetry, 4th edition, 2018, ISBN 978 3 902842 13 8; IBR approved for appendix R to subpart B.
(p) * * *
(4) IES LM-9-2020, (“IES LM-9-20”), ANSI/IES LM-9-2020—Approved Method: Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Fluorescent Lamps, approved February 7, 2020; IBR approved for appendix R to subpart B.
(7) IES LM-20-2020, (“IES LM-20-20”), ANSI/IES LM-20-20 Approved Method: Photometry of Reflector Type Lamps, approved February 7, 2020; IBR approved for appendix R to subpart B.
(9) IES LM-45-2020, (“IES LM-45-20”), ANSI/IES LM-45-20 Approved Method: Electrical and Photometric Measurement of General Service Incandescent Filament Lamps, approved February 7, 2020; IBR approved for appendix R to subpart B.
(10) IES LM-49-2020, (“IES LM-49-20”), ANSI/IES LM-49-20 Approved Method: Life Testing of Incandescent Filament Lamps, approved February 7, 2020; IBR approved for appendix R to subpart B.
(12) IES LM-54-2020, (“IES LM-54-20”), ANSI/IES LM-54-20 Approved Method: IES Guide to Lamp Seasoning, approved February 7, 2020; IBR approved for appendix R to subpart B.
(13) IES LM-58-2020, (“IES LM-58-20”) ANSI/IES LM-58-20 Approved Method: Spectroradiometric Measurements Methods for Lighting Sources; approved February 7, 2020, IBR approved for appendix R to subpart B.
(18) IES LM-78-2020, (“IES LM-78-20”) ANSI/IES LM-78-20 Approved Method: Total Luminous Flux Measurement of Lamps Using an Integrating Sphere Photometer,” approved February 7, 2020, IBR approved for appendix R to subpart B.
(r)
2.
2.1 To the extent that definitions in the referenced IES and CIE standards do not conflict with the DOE definitions, the definitions specified in section 3.0 of IES LM-9-20 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), section 3.0 of IES LM-20-20 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), section 3.0 of IES LM-45-20 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), section 3.0 of IES LM-58-20 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), Appendix 1 of CIE 13.3, and CIE 15:2018 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) apply in this Appendix.
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.
1 When there is a conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes precedence over any materials incorporated by reference.
3.2 Maintain lamp operating orientation throughout seasoning and testing, including storage and handling between tests.
3.3 If a lamp breaks, becomes defective, fails to stabilize, exhibits abnormal behavior (such as swirling), or stops producing light prior to the end of the seasoning period, replace the lamp with a new unit. However, if a lamp exhibits one of the conditions listed in the previous sentence only after the seasoning period ends, include the lamp's measurements in the sample.3.4 Operate GSILs and IRLs at the rated voltage for incandescent lamps as defined in 10 CFR 430.2.
4.
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.1.1 Establish ambient, physical, and electrical conditions in accordance with sections (and corresponding subsections) 4.0, 5.0, 6.1, 6.5, and 6.6 of IES LM-9-20. 4.1.1.2 Operate each lamp at the appropriate voltage and current conditions as described in ANSI C78.375A (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) and in either ANSI C78.81 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) or ANSI C78.901 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). Operate each lamp using the appropriate reference ballast at input voltage specified by the reference circuit as described in ANSI C82.3 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). If, for a lamp, both low-frequency and high-frequency reference ballast settings are included in ANSI C78.81 or ANSI C78.901, operate the lamp using the low-frequency reference ballast. When testing with low-frequency reference ballast settings, include cathode power only if the circuit application of the lamp is specified as rapid start in ANSI C78.81 or ANSI C78.901. When testing with high-frequency reference ballast settings, do not include cathode power in the measurement. For any lamp not listed in ANSI C78.81 or ANSI C78.901, operate the lamp using the following reference ballast settings:
4.1.1.2.1 For 4-Foot medium bi-pin lamps, use the following reference ballast settings:
(a) T10 or T12 lamps: 236 volts, 0.43 amps, and 439 ohms, at low frequency (60 Hz) and with cathode power. Approximate cathode wattage (with 3.6 V on each cathode): 2.0 W. Cathode characteristics for low resistance (at 3.6V): 9.6 ohms (objective), 7.0 ohms (minimum). Cathode heat for rapid start: 3.6 V (nominal); 2.5 V min, 4.0 V max (limits
(b) T8 lamps: 300 volts, 0.265 amps, and 910 ohms, at low frequency (60 Hz) and with cathode power. Approximate cathode wattage (with 3.6 V on each cathode): 1.7 W. Cathode characteristics for low resistance (at 3.6 V): 12.0 +/− 2.0 ohms; 4.75 +/− 0.50 (Rh/Rc ratio). Cathode heat for rapid start: 3.6 V (nominal); 2.5 V min; 4.4 V max (limits during operation); 11.0 ohms +/− 0.1 ohms (dummy load resistor); 3.4 V min, 4.5 V max (voltage across dummy load).
4.1.1.2.2 For 2-Foot U-shaped lamps, use the following reference ballast settings:
(a) T12 lamps: 236 volts, 0.430 amps, and 439 ohms, at low frequency (60 Hz) and with cathode power. Approximate cathode wattage (with 3.6 V on each cathode): 2.0 W. Cathode characteristics for low resistance (at 3.6V): 9.6 ohms (objective), 7.0 ohms (minimum). Cathode heat for rapid start: 3.6 V (nominal); 2.5 V min, 4.0 V max (limits during operation); 9.6 ohms +/− 0.1 ohm (dummy load resistor); 3.4 V min, 4.5 V max (voltage across dummy load).
(b) T8 lamps: 300 volts, 0.265 amps, and 910 ohms, at low frequency (60 Hz) and with cathode power. Approximate cathode wattage (with 3.6 V on each cathode): 1.7 W. Cathode characteristics for low resistance (at 3.6 V): 11.0 ohms (objective); 8.0 ohms (minimum). Cathode heat for rapid start: 3.6 V (nominal); 2.5 V min; 4.4 V max (limits during operation); 11.0 ohms +/− 0.1 ohms (dummy load resistor); 3.4 V min, 4.5 V max (voltage across dummy load).
4.1.1.2.3 For 8-foot slimline lamps, use the following reference ballast settings:
(a)
(b)
4.1.1.2.4 For 8-foot high output lamps, use the following reference ballast settings:
(a)
(b)
4.1.1.2.5 For 4-foot miniature bipin standard output or high output lamps, use the following reference ballast settings:
(a)
(b)
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.2.
Multiply all lumen measurements made with instruments calibrated to the devalued NIST lumen after January 1, 1996, by 1.011.
4.2.1
4.2.1.1 Season and stabilize lamps according to sections (and corresponding subsections) 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 of IES LM-9-20, including reference to IES LM-54-20.
4.2.1.2 Measure the initial input power (in watts).
4.2.1.3 Measure initial lumen output in accordance with section 7.0 (and corresponding subsections) of IES LM-9-20, including reference to IES LM-78-20.
4.2.1.4 Calculate initial lamp efficacy by dividing the measured initial lumen output by the measured initial input power.
4.2.1.5 Calculate CRI as specified in section 7.6 of IES LM-9-20 and CIE 13.3. Conduct the required spectroradiometric measurement and characterization in accordance with the methods set forth in IES LM-58-20.
4.2.1.6 Calculate CCT as specified in section 7.6 of IES LM-9-20 and CIE 15:2018 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). Conduct the required spectroradiometric measurement and characterization in accordance with the methods set forth in IES LM-58-20.
4.2.2
4.2.2.1 Season and stabilize lamps according to section (and corresponding subsections) 6.2 of IES LM-45-20, including reference to IES LM-54-20.
4.2.2.2 Measure the initial input power (in watts).
4.2.2.3 Measure initial lumen output in accordance with section (and corresponding subsections) 7.0 of IES LM-45-20, including reference to IES LM-78-20.
4.2.2.4 Calculate initial lamp efficacy by dividing the measured initial lumen output by the measured initial input power.
4.2.2.5 Calculate CRI as specified in section 7.4 of IES LM-45-20 and CIE 13.3. Conduct the required spectroradiometric measurement and characterization in accordance with the methods set forth in IES LM-58-20.
4.2.2.6 Calculate CCT as specified in section 7.4 of IES LM-45-20 and CIE 15:2018. The required spectroradiometric measurement and characterization shall be conducted in accordance with the methods set forth in IES LM-58-20.
4.2.3
4.2.3.1 Season and stabilize lamps in accordance with section (and corresponding subsections) 6.0 of IES LM-20-20 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), including reference to IES LM-54-20.
4.2.3.2 Measure the initial input power (in watts).
4.2.3.3 Measure initial lumen output in accordance with sections (and corresponding subsections) 7.0 or 8.0 of IES LM-20-20, including reference to IES LM-78-20. When measuring in accordance with section 8.0, exclude undirected light using the method specified in section 8.2.
4.2.3.4 Calculate initial lamp efficacy by dividing the measured initial lumen output by the measured initial input power.
4.2.3.5 Calculate CRI as specified in CIE 13.3. Conduct the required spectroradiometric measurement and characterization in accordance with the methods set forth in IES LM-58-20.
4.2.3.6 Calculate CCT as specified in CIE 15:2018. Conduct the required spectroradiometric measurement and characterization in accordance with the methods set forth in IES LM-58-20.
5.
Follow sections 1.0 through 4.0 of this appendix to make voluntary representations only for GSFLs that have high frequency reference ballast settings in ANSI C78.81-2016 and ANSI C78.901-2016 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). Where ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901 are referenced in the preceding sections, use ANSI C78.81-2016 and ANSI C78.901-2016 instead. Operate lamps using high frequency reference ballast settings and without cathode power. Voluntary representations must be in addition to, and not in place of, a representation in accordance with sections 1.0 to 4.0 for GSFLs. As a best practice, an indication of high frequency operation should be provided with the voluntary representations.
6.
6.1
6.2
6.2.1 Season and stabilize lamps according to section 6.2 of IES LM-45-20 for GSILs and in accordance with section (and corresponding subsections) 6.0 of IES LM-20-20 for IRLs.
6.2.2 Measure the time to failure as specified in section 6.4 of IES LM-49-20 and based on the lamp's operating time, expressed in hours, not including any off time.
6.3 Accelerated lifetime testing is not allowed; disregard the second paragraph of section 6.4 of IES LM-49-20.
(n)
(2) The standards described in paragraph (n)(1) of this section do not apply to:
(i) Any 4-foot medium bipin lamp or 2-foot U-shaped lamp with a rated wattage less than 28 watts;
(ii) Any 8-foot high output lamp not defined in ANSI C78.81 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) or related supplements, or not 0.800 nominal amperes; or
(iii) Any 8-foot slimline lamp not defined in ANSI C78.3 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).
(3) Each of the following general service fluorescent lamps manufactured on or after January 26, 2018, shall meet or exceed the following lamp efficacy standards shown in the table:
(4) Each of the following incandescent reflector lamps manufactured after July 14, 2012, must meet or exceed the lamp efficacy standards shown in the table:
(5) The standards specified in this section do not apply to the following types of incandescent reflector lamps:
(i) Lamps rated at 50 watts or less that are ER30, BR30, BR40, or ER40 lamps;
(ii) Lamps rated at 65 watts that are BR30, BR40, or ER40 lamps; or
(iii) R20 incandescent reflector lamps rated 45 watts or less.
(x)
(1) The energy conservation standards in this paragraph apply to general service incandescent lamps:
(i) Intended for a general service or general illumination application (whether incandescent or not);
(ii) Has a medium screw base or any other screw base not defined in ANSI C81.61 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3); and
(iii) Is capable of being operated at a voltage at least partially within the range of 110 to 130 volts.
(2) General service incandescent lamps manufactured after the effective dates specified in the tables below, except as described in paragraph (x)(3) of this section, shall have a color rendering index greater than or equal to 80 and shall have rated wattage no greater than and lifetime no less than the values shown in the table below:
(3) Modified spectrum general service incandescent lamps manufactured after the effective dates specified shall have a color rendering index greater than or equal to 75 and shall have a rated wattage no greater than and lifetime no less than the values shown in the table below:
(4) Each candelabra base incandescent lamp shall not exceed 60 rated watts.
(5) Each intermediate base incandescent lamp shall not exceed 40 rated watts.