Rural Housing Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Correcting amendment.
On May 10, 2021, we published a final rule amending the U.S. Department of Agriculture's civil monetary penalty regulations by making inflation adjustments as mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. We are correcting an error that appeared in that final rule.
Effective June 9, 2021.
Mr. Stephen O'Neill, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW,Washington, DC 20250-1400, (202) 720-0038.
In a final rule published and effective on June 17, 2020 (85 FR 36670-36714), we amended the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) debt management regulations in 7 CFR part 3. As part of that final rule, we revised the regulations in § 3.91 to update the amount of civil monetary penalties that may be levied by USDA agencies to reflect inflationary adjustments for 2020 as required by the 2015 Civil Penalties Act.
In making those updates, we inadvertently introduced an error into paragraph (b)(2)(xiv) of § 3.91. Prior to the effective date of the June 2020 final rule, that paragraph had specified that the civil penalty for a violation of the Commercial Transportation of Equine for Slaughter Act, 7 U.S.C. 1901 note, and its implementing regulations in 9 CFR part 88, as set forth in 9 CFR 88.6, has a maximum of $5,000. The June 2020 final rule should have adjusted that maximum amount to $5,088 consistent with the guidance contained in Office of Management and Budget memorandum M-20-05, which provided a cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2020 of 1.01764. However, due to a drafting error, the amount that appeared was $812.
That error carried over into our 2021 adjustments, which were published and effective on May 10, 2021 (86 FR 24699-24703), in which we applied the 2021 cost-of-living adjustment multiplier (1.01182) to the incorrect $812 figure to arrive at an adjusted penalty of $822.
To address these errors, we are amending 7 CFR 3.91(b)(2)(xiv) to replace the incorrect penalty amount with the correct amount, which is $5,148 (
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Government employees, Income taxes, Loan programs-agriculture, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 3 as follows:
28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
In this final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to reflect the formal termination by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of its participation in the Arab League Boycott of Israel. Specifically, in recognition of the UAE's August 16, 2020 issuance of Federal Decree-Law No. 4 of 2020, certain requests for information, action or agreement from the UAE, which were presumed to be boycott-related if made prior to August 16, 2020, would not be presumed to be boycott-related if made following that date, and thus would not be prohibited or reportable under the EAR. Accordingly, BIS adds an interpretation to the Restrictive Trade Practices or Boycotts regulations of the EAR, which sets forth BIS's view that the prohibitions and reporting requirements contained in the EAR's antiboycott provisions do not apply to such requests from the UAE made after August 16, 2020.
This rule is effective June 8, 2021.
Cathleen Ryan, Director, Office of Antiboycott Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, by email at
The Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC) administers and enforces the antiboycott provisions set forth in part 760 (Restrictive Trade Practices and Boycotts) of the Export Administration
In connection with an agreement between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel establishing full diplomatic and commercial relations and normalization (the “Abraham Accords”), on August 16, 2020, the UAE issued Federal Decree-Law No. 4 of 2020, which repealed Federal Law No. 15 of 1972 Concerning the Arab League Boycott of Israel (“August 16, 2020 decree”), thereby formally ending the UAE's participation in the Arab League Boycott of Israel.
In this final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends part 760 of the EAR to add an Interpretation that reflects the UAE's formal termination (through the issuance of the August 16, 2020 decree) of its participation in the Arab League Boycott of Israel. In making this amendment, BIS has also taken into account actions that the UAE Government has undertaken to implement, in policy and practice, the August 16, 2020 decree. As set forth in this Interpretation, which will appear as new Supplement No. 17 to part 760 of the EAR, certain requests for information, action or agreement from the UAE that were presumed to be boycott-related prior to August 16, 2020 would not be presumed to be boycott-related if issued after August 16, 2020, and thus would not be subject to the prohibitions or reporting requirements of part 760 of the EAR. Further, the Interpretation reminds United States persons that requests that are on their face boycott-related or that are for action obviously in furtherance or support of an unsanctioned foreign boycott are subject to part 760 of the EAR, irrespective of the country of origination.
On August 13, 2018, President Donald J. Trump signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). Part II of ECRA contains the Anti-Boycott Act of 2018. ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all 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, distribute 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. This final rule has been designated as not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
3. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4821), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.
4. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
5. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may be required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade practices.
Accordingly, part 760 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
Pursuant to the agreement between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel establishing diplomatic and commercial relations (the “Abraham Accords”), on August 16, 2020, the UAE issued Federal Decree-Law No. 4 of 2020, abolishing Federal Law No. 15 of 1972 Concerning the Arab League Boycott of Israel, thereby formally terminating participation by the UAE in the Arab League Boycott of Israel as of that date.
On the basis of this action, it is the Department's position that certain requests for information, action or agreement from the UAE, which were presumed to be boycott-related under this part of the EAR if issued prior to August 16, 2020, would not be presumed to be boycott-related if issued after August 16, 2020, and thus would not be prohibited or reportable under this part of the EAR.
For example, a request from the UAE that an exporter certify that the vessel on which it is shipping its goods is eligible to enter UAE ports was formerly presumed to be a boycott-related request under this part of the EAR with which the exporter could not comply because the UAE had a boycott law in force against Israel. Such a request from the UAE made after August 16, 2020, would no longer be presumed to be boycott-related because the underlying boycott requirement/basis for the certification was eliminated as of August 16, 2020. Similarly, a U.S. company would not be prohibited from complying with a request made by UAE government officials after August 16, 2020, to furnish the place of birth of employees the company is seeking to take to the UAE because there is no underlying
U.S. persons are reminded that requests that are on their face boycott-related or that are for action obviously in furtherance or support of an unsanctioned foreign boycott are subject to this part of the EAR, irrespective of the country of origination. For example, requests containing references to “blacklisted companies,” “Israel boycott list,” “non-Israeli goods,” or other phrases or words indicating a boycott purpose would be subject to the appropriate provisions of the Department's antiboycott regulations in this part.
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is issuing this final rule to implement technical changes to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program (TRIP or Program) rules in response to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2019. In addition, Treasury is issuing this final rule to: Clarify the manner in which Treasury will calculate “property and casualty insurance losses” for purposes of considering certification of an act of terrorism, and “insured losses” when administering the financial sharing mechanisms under the Program, including the Program Trigger and Program Cap; incorporate into the Program rules the prior guidance provided by Treasury in connection with stand-alone cyber insurance under the Program; and provide updated links to additional information found on the Program's website relating to administration of the Program. The changes were published in proposed form for public comment by Treasury on November 10, 2020.
This rule is effective July 12, 2021.
Richard Ifft, Senior Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, 202-622-2922, Lindsey Baldwin, Senior Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, 202-622-3220, or Daniel McKnight, Policy Analyst, 202-622-7009.
The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (as amended, the Act or TRIA)
The Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) administers the Program, with the assistance of the Federal Insurance Office (FIO).
Treasury proposed the changes in this final rule in a November 2020 notice of proposed rulemaking (the November 2020 NPRM).
The November 2020 NPRM proposed various technical changes to the Program Rules to account for the extension of the Program to December 31, 2027 as provided for in the 2019 Reauthorization Act.
Treasury received five comments addressing the proposed rule changes identified in the November 2020 NPRM.
Some commenters addressed Treasury's proposed rule changes regarding the interpretation of the terms “property and casualty insurance losses” for purposes of the certification process, and “insured loss” for purposes of the sharing mechanisms under the Program. Treasury's proposed rules clarified that “property and casualty insurance losses,” for certification purposes, would include loss amounts ultimately sustained by the policyholder (on account of deductibles, retentions, or other mechanisms); however, an “insured loss” (a term used in relation to payments under the Program rather than the certification process) would not include such amounts, because payments in connection with the Program are limited to loss amounts that are actually paid (or in some cases to be paid) by insurers.
One commenter, while not expressing a preference for the elements to be included within the two terms (“property and casualty insurance losses” and “insured loss”), did suggest that these terms should have the same interpretation for reasons of administrative efficiency.
Accordingly, Treasury will not apply the same definition where Congress chose not to do so. Furthermore, and for the reasons explained above, including policyholder obligations within the meaning of “insured loss” would potentially permit recoveries by insurers for amounts not paid by such insurers, and excuse insurer payments to some extent on account of policyholder payments through operation of the Program Cap. Treasury therefore declines to interpret “insured loss” in this fashion.
A third commenter offered alternative language to clarify the terms “property and casualty insurance losses” and “insured loss.”
Regarding the proposed modification to the “insured loss” definition, the same commenter generally approved of the concept behind Treasury's proposed rule (
As Treasury has advised from the outset of the Program, efforts to avoid the requirements of TRIA so as to artificially increase recoveries under the Program are impermissible and will have adverse consequences when Treasury evaluates claims for the Federal Share of Compensation in the event of a certified act of terrorism.
Accordingly, Treasury is also adopting without change in this final rule the interpretation of “property and casualty insurance losses” and “insured loss” proposed in the November 2020 NPRM.
Insurance, Terrorism.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 31 CFR part 50 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321; Title I, Pub. L. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322, as amended by Pub. L. 109-144, 119 Stat. 2660, Pub. L. 110-160, 121 Stat. 1839, Pub. L. 114-1, 129 Stat. 3, Pub. L. 116-94, 133 Stat. 2534 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note), Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 601, Title VII (28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
(a)
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Property and casualty insurance losses resulting from the act, in the aggregate, do not exceed $5,000,000. For these purposes, property and casualty insurance losses include any amounts subject to payment under a property and casualty insurance policy, even if the policyholder declined to obtain terrorism risk insurance under the policy or is otherwise ultimately responsible for the payment.
(n) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Payments by an insurer in excess of policy limits; or
(iv) Amounts paid by a policyholder as required under the terms and conditions of property and casualty insurance issued by an insurer.
(w) * * *
(1) Means commercial lines within only the following lines of insurance from the NAIC's Exhibit of Premiums and Losses (commonly known as Statutory Page 14): Line 1—Fire; Line 2.1—Allied Lines; Line 5.1—Commercial Multiple Peril (non-liability portion); Line 5.2—Commercial Multiple Peril (liability portion); Line 8—Ocean Marine; Line 9—Inland Marine; Line 16—Workers' Compensation; Line 17—Other Liability; Line 18—Products Liability; Line 22—Aircraft (all perils); and Line 27—Boiler and Machinery; a stand-alone cyber liability policy falling within Line 17—Other Liability, is property and casualty insurance, so long as it is not otherwise identified for state reporting purposes as a policy that is not property and casualty insurance, such as professional liability insurance.
(2) Property and casualty insurance does not include:
(b) For purposes of this section, any Interim Guidance will be posted by Treasury at
(c)
(b)
(c)
(c)
(b)
(b)
(c) If the Secretary imposes a federal terrorism policy surcharge as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, then the required amounts, based upon the extent to which payments for the Federal Share of Compensation have been made by the collection deadlines in section 103(e)(7)(E) of the Act, shall be collected in accordance with such deadlines:
(1) For any act of terrorism that occurs on or before December 31, 2022, the Secretary shall collect all required amounts by September 30, 2024;
(2) For any act of terrorism that occurs between January 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023, the Secretary shall collect 35% of any required amounts by September 30, 2024, and the remainder by September 30, 2029; and
(3) For any act of terrorism that occurs on or after January 1, 2024, the Secretary shall collect all required amounts by September 30, 2029.
(a)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Interim final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is issuing this interim final rule to extend the deadline for former members insured under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) to apply for VGLI coverage following separation from service in order to address the inability of former members directly or indirectly affected by the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) public health emergency to purchase VGLI. This rule will be in effect until December 11, 2021.
This interim final rule is effective June 9, 2021.
Comments may be submitted through
Paul Weaver, Department of Veterans Affairs Insurance Service (310/290B), 5000 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, (215) 842-2000, ext. 4263. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Section 1977 of title 38, United States Code, authorizes the VGLI program, which provides former members separating from service with the option of converting existing SGLI coverage into renewable, 5-year term group life insurance coverage in amounts ranging from $10,000 to $400,000 based upon the amount of SGLI coverage.
On October 7, 2020, VA published a final rule in the
The rationale for applying the rule for one year was that VA is obligated to manage VGLI according to sound and accepted actuarial principles (
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds that there is good cause to dispense with the opportunity for prior comment with respect to this rule and to make the rule effective upon publication. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the opportunity for advance public comment is not required with respect to a rulemaking when an “agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
VA previously published an interim final rule on June 11, 2020 which expires on June 11, 2021. In this interim final rulemaking, we are extending the prior rulemaking by an additional six months. If the interim final rulemaking is not published prior to the expiration date, then there will be a gap in the application deadline extensions for those individuals applying for VGLI.
The need for this interim final rule was unanticipated because the data pertaining to COVID-19 was continuously evolving and VA had to evaluate data from an actuarial perspective to ensure that another extension of the application deadlines would not put upward pressure on VGLI premiums or otherwise negatively impact the financial stability of the program. The Secretary finds that it is impracticable to delay this regulation for the purpose of soliciting public comment because former members cannot receive VGLI coverage if they do not satisfy the application requirements within the deadlines established by 38 CFR 9.2(c). The VGLI statute does not authorize retroactive adjudication of applications for VGLI coverage, and former members who wish to apply for VGLI would be significantly harmed if these extensions lapse, since many former members choose to purchase VGLI because these former members are unable to qualify for private commercial plans of insurance coverage due to disabilities incurred while in service. Section 553(d) also requires a 30-day delayed effective date following publication of a rule, except for “(1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” Pursuant to section 553(d)(1), the Secretary finds that this interim final rule should be effective immediately upon publication because this is a substantive rule which relieves restrictions,
For the foregoing reasons, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is issuing this rule as an interim final rule with an immediate effective date. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs will consider and address comments that are received within 30 days of the date this interim final rule is published in the
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at
The Secretary hereby certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The provisions contained in this interim final rulemaking are applicable to individual Veterans, and applications for VGLI, as submitted by such individuals, are specifically managed and processed within VA and through Prudential Insurance Company of America, which is not considered to be a small entity. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This interim final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
This interim final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.103, Life Insurance for Veterans.
Life insurance, Military personnel, Veterans.
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on May 24, 2021, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 9 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 501, 1965-1980A, unless otherwise noted.
(f) * * *
(2) Paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall not apply to an application or initial premium received after December 11, 2021.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The revision pertains to the Commonwealth's plan, submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (referred to as the “1997 ozone NAAQS”) in the Tioga County, Pennsylvania area (Tioga County Area). EPA is approving these revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on July 9, 2021.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0321. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Adam Yarina, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2108. Mr. Yarina can also be reached via electronic mail at
On February 8, 2021 (86 FR 8569), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Tioga County Area through July 6, 2027, in accordance with CAA section 175A. The formal SIP revision was submitted by PADEP on March 10, 2020.
On July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36892, effective same day), EPA approved a redesignation request and maintenance plan from PADEP for the Tioga County Area. In accordance with CAA section 175A(b), at the end of the eighth year after the effective date of the redesignation, the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years, and in
As discussed in the February 8, 2021 NPRM, EPA allows the submittal of a limited maintenance plan (LMP) to meet the statutory requirement that the area will maintain for the statutory period. Qualifying areas may meet the maintenance demonstration by showing that the area's design value
Other specific requirements of PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
EPA received comments on the February 8, 2021 NPRM from two commenters. All comments received are in the docket for this rulemaking action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided herein.
The first commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve this plan because air quality levels were not at or below 85% of the NAAQS, and that one of EPA's methods for demonstrating continued future maintenance of the NAAQS is flawed.
EPA is approving PADEP's second maintenance plan for the Tioga County Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices if they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 9, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, approving PADEP's second maintenance plan for the Tioga County Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The revision consists of amendments to a federally enforceable state operating permit (FESOP) which was previously incorporated into the Virginia SIP in order to implement reasonably available control technology (RACT) for nitrogen oxide (NO
This final rule is effective on July 9, 2021.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0596. All documents in the docket are listed on the
David Talley, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2117. Mr. Talley can also be reached via electronic mail at
On March 8, 2021 (86 FR 13254), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of Virginia's submittal. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on behalf of the Commonwealth on April 14, 2020.
Prior to the establishment of nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), EPA developed a program to allow these potential nonattainment areas to voluntarily adopt local emission control programs to avoid air quality violations and mandated nonattainment area controls. Areas with air quality meeting the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS were eligible to participate. In order to participate, state
Virginia's April 14, 2020 submittal includes a revised operating permit for SDI which amends the 2004 permit to account for changes in operation at the facility, including the shut-down of a number of units. Since the issuance of the 2004 permit (and EPA's subsequent SIP approval), operations at the facility have changed, requiring a revision of both the operating permit and the operating permit provisions incorporated into the SIP. The only remaining units at the facility that are subject to the source specific NO
EPA received one comment in response to the proposed rulemaking. The comment was supportive of EPA's proposed action and will not be addressed here but is provided in the docket for this rulemaking. No adverse comments were received.
EPA is approving VADEQ's April 14, 2020 submittal as a revision to the Virginia SIP.
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 9, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action pertaining to source specific NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Final rule.
This final rule adjusts the level of civil monetary penalties contained in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) regulations governing onshore oil and gas operations and coal trespass as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and consistent with applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. The oil and gas operations penalty adjustments made by this final rule constitute the 2021 annual inflation adjustments, accounting for 1 year of inflation spanning the period from October 2019 through October 2020. The coal trespass inflation adjustments in this rule include the initial “catch-up” adjustment for 2016, and the annual adjustments for years 2017 to 2021.
This rule is effective on June 9, 2021.
For information regarding the BLM's Fluid Minerals Program, please contact Donna Dixon, Division Chief, Fluid Minerals Division, telephone: 505-954-2032; email:
On November 2, 2015, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (the 2015 Act) became law, amending the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410).
The 2015 Act requires agencies to:
1. Adjust the level of civil monetary penalties for inflation with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking in 2016;
2. Make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation beginning in 2017; and
3. Report annually in Agency Financial Reports on these inflation adjustments.
The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties and promote compliance with the law (
As required by the 2015 Act, the BLM issued an interim final rule that adjusted the level of civil monetary penalties in BLM regulations with the initial “catch-up” adjustment (RIN 1004-AE46, 81 FR 41860), which was published on June 28, 2016, and became effective on July 28, 2016. On January 19, 2017, the BLM published a final rule (RIN 1004-AE49, 82 FR 6305) updating the civil penalty amounts to the 2017 annual adjustment levels. Final rules updating the civil penalty amounts to 2018, 2019, and 2020 annual adjustment levels were published in subsequent years (RIN 1004-AE51, 83 FR 3992; RIN 1004-AE56, 84 FR 22379; and RIN 1004-AE77, 85 FR 10617, respectively).
OMB issued Memorandum M-21-10 on December 23, 2020, (Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2021, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015) explaining agency responsibilities for identifying applicable penalties and calculating the annual adjustment for 2021 in accordance with the 2015 Act.
In accordance with the 2015 Act and OMB Memorandum M-21-10, the BLM has identified applicable civil monetary penalties in its regulations and calculated the annual adjustments. A civil monetary penalty is any assessment with a dollar amount that is levied for a violation of a Federal civil statute or regulation and is assessed or enforceable through a civil action in Federal court or an administrative proceeding. A civil monetary penalty does not include a penalty levied for violation of a criminal statute, nor does it include fees for services, licenses, permits, or other regulatory review. The calculated annual inflation adjustments are based on the percentage change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the October preceding the date of the adjustment, and the prior year's October CPI-U. Consistent with guidance in OMB Memorandum M-21-10, the BLM divided the October 2020 CPI-U by the October 2019 CPI-U to calculate the
The 2015 Act requires the BLM to adjust the civil penalty amounts in 43 CFR 3163.2 and 43 CFR 9239.5-3(f)(1). To accomplish this, the BLM multiplied the current penalty amounts in 43 CFR 3163.2(b)(1) and (2), (d), (e), and (f) by the multiplier set forth in OMB Memorandum M-21-10 (1.01182) to obtain the adjusted penalty amounts. The 2015 Act requires that the resulting amounts be rounded to the nearest $1.00 at the end of the calculation process.
This year's adjustments include 43 CFR 9239.5-3(f)(1), which provides for a penalty of not more than $1,000 for each day of violation for willfully conducting coal exploration for commercial purposes without an exploration license. This provision meets the criteria for annual adjustments under the 2015 Act but was inadvertently omitted in previous adjustments. Consistent with OMB Memorandum M-16-06 (February 24, 2016), the adjusted penalty amount was calculated by applying the initial “catch-up” adjustment based on the percent change between the CPI-U for 1977, the year the current penalty amount was established by regulation, and the October 2015 CPI-U, giving a catch-up adjustment multiplier of 3.86101 for 2016. After applying the initial catch-up adjustment multiplier, that amount was multiplied by 1.09481 to reflect the combined annual inflation adjustments for 2017 to 2021, giving an adjusted penalty of $4,227.00.
The adjusted penalty amounts will take effect immediately upon publication of this rule. Pursuant to the 2015 Act, the adjusted civil penalty amounts apply to civil penalties assessed after the date the increase takes effect, even if the associated violation predates such increase. This final rule adjusts the following civil penalties:
In accordance with the 2015 Act, agencies must adjust civil monetary penalties “notwithstanding Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act” (sec. 4(b)(2), 2015 Act). The BLM is promulgating this 2021 inflation adjustment for civil penalties as a final rule pursuant to the provisions of the 2015 Act and OMB guidance. A proposed rule is not required because the 2015 Act expressly exempts the annual inflation adjustments from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, since the 2015 Act does not give the BLM any discretion to vary the amount of the annual inflation adjustment for any given penalty to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters, it would serve no purpose to provide an opportunity for public comment on this rule.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant. (
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability and to reduce uncertainty and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science, and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements to the extent permitted by the 2015 Act.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule.
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(c) Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule will potentially affect individuals and companies who conduct operations on oil and gas leases or who explore for coal for commercial purposes without an exploration license on Federal or Indian lands. The BLM believes that the vast majority of potentially affected entities will be small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration. However, the BLM does not believe the rule will pose a significant economic impact on the oil and gas or coal industries, including any small entities, as any lessee or trespasser can avoid being assessed civil penalties by operating in compliance with BLM rules and regulations.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Therefore, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because, as a regulation of an administrative nature, the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion (
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Indians-lands, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Penalties, Public lands-mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties, Public lands.
For the reasons given in the preamble, the BLM amends chapter II of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
25 U.S.C. 396d and 2107; 30 U.S.C. 189, 306, 359, and 1751; 43 U.S.C. 1732(b), 1733, 1740; and Sec. 107, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, unless otherwise noted.
R.S. 2478 and 43 U.S.C. 1201.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
On February 12, 2021, the Media Bureau, Video Division (Bureau) issued a
Effective June 9, 2021.
Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1647 or
The proposed rule was published at 86 FR 17110 on April 1, 2021. Gray filed comments in support of the petition reaffirming its commitment to apply for channel 20. No other comments were filed. Gray states that VHF channels have certain propagation characteristics which may cause reception issues for some viewers, and that the reception of VHF signals requires larger antennas relative to UHF channels. Moreover, many viewers are unable to receive KAIT's signal. Gray further states that while there is small terrain limited predicted loss area, the viewers will continue to be well served by at least five other stations and receive ABC
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) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; inseason adjustments to biennial groundfish management measures.
This final rule announces routine inseason adjustments to the harvest limits for incidental lingcod retention in the salmon troll fishery north of 40°10′ N lat.
This final rule is effective June 9, 2021.
This rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at
Gretchen Hanshew, phone: 206-526-6147 or email:
The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP) and its implementing regulations at title 50 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 660, subparts C through G, regulate fishing for over 90 species of groundfish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) develops groundfish harvest specifications and management measures for two-year periods (
The management measures set at the start of the biennial harvest specifications cycle help the sectors of the fishery attain, but not exceed, the catch limits for each stock. The Council, in coordination with Pacific Coast Treaty Indian Tribes and the states of Washington, Oregon, and California, recommends adjustments to the management measures during the fishing year to achieve this goal. At the April 8-9 and 12-15, 2021, virtual meetings, the Council recommended adjusting the incidental retention allowance for lingcod in the salmon troll fishery north of 40°10′ N lat.
The commercial fishery for salmon using trolled hook and line gear operates off Washington, Oregon, and California, usually beginning in the spring. This fishery is managed by NMFS and co-managers (states and the tribes) to harvest, but not exceed, salmon harvest targets that are set annually, based on the best available scientific information. Participants in the salmon troll fishery are not prohibited from fishing for salmon in areas that are closed to groundfish fishing, like the non-trawl Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA). Salmon trollers, however, when fishing in the RCA north of 40°10′ N. lat., are prohibited from retaining groundfish with two exceptions; yellowtail rockfish and lingcod may be retained in limited quantities and subject to an incidental retention ratio of groundfish to Chinook salmon.
The 2021-2022 harvest specifications and management measures final rule, published on December 11, 2020 (85 FR 79880), maintained the existing
As described in the 2019-2020 harvest specifications and management measures Environmental Assessment, the Council's objectives with the lingcod landing ratio in the salmon troll fishery coupled with a per trip maximum retention limit are to allow incidentally caught lingcod to be landed. The intent of this ratio is to strike a balance between providing a modest economic benefit to the salmon troll fishery and reducing regulatory discards of lingcod, while also dissuading targeting of lingcod and not preempting targeted lingcod harvest opportunities in the groundfish fishery.
The most recent stock assessment (2017) indicates that biomass of lingcod has been increasing since 1999. Salmon trollers also testified at the April Council meeting that they are catching lingcod more often than in previous years when targeting Chinook salmon. While lingcod are increasing in abundance, Chinook salmon harvest opportunities are becoming more restricted. Landings and numbers of trips, which are indicators of fishing effort, for Chinook salmon in 2020 were the lowest since 2011, which is likely due to effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as restricted Chinook salmon harvest opportunities in low abundance years. With low Chinook salmon harvest in 2020, lingcod reached its highest revenue contributions to salmon troll fishermen. This indicates that lingcod is contributing to fishing portfolios of some salmon troll fishermen, though the number of salmon troll vessels that retain lingcod (approximately 13.5 percent) has remained fairly steady since 2011. In response to these changes, at the April Council meeting, industry requested a change in the incidental lingcod retention ratio in the salmon troll fishery to allow for increased lingcod retention. Industry did not request a change to the incidental lingcod retention trip limit of ten lingcod or to any of the other lingcod harvest limits.
In response to industry's request, the Council considered most recently available scientific and fishery information, including but not limited to harvest levels in the salmon troll fishery in recent years, mortality estimates for 2019, and forecasts for ocean salmon fisheries. Based on this information, the Council recommended a change to the lingcod landing ratio in the salmon troll fishery.
The Council's recommendation to the incidental lingcod retention ratio in the salmon troll fishery was based on:
(1) A lack of evidence that salmon trollers were targeting lingcod during Chinook salmon trips under the 2019 and 2020 landing ratio:
(2) Predicted harvests of lingcod and co-occurring yelloweye rockfish that are expected to remain well within the 2021 Annual Catch Limits, while not preempting targeted groundfish fishing opportunities;
(3) anecdotal information about an increasing lingcod encounter rate in the salmon troll fishery; and
(4) the economic benefits of reducing regulatory discards and allowing retention of lingcod, particularly in Chinook salmon low abundance years.
Therefore, the Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing, a change in the incidental lingcod retention ratio in the salmon troll fishery north of 40°10′ N. lat. from a ratio of one lingcod per five Chinook salmon to a ratio of one lingcod per two Chinook salmon. The rules allowing a “plus one” lingcod in addition to the ratio, a ten lingcod per trip limit, and a 1,000 lbs/month limit would remain in place.
This final rule makes routine inseason adjustments to groundfish fishery management measures, based on the best scientific information available, consistent with the PCGFMP and its implementing regulations.
This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.60(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection by contacting Abbie Moyer in NMFS West Coast Region (see
NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the revisions to groundfish management measures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The adjustments to management measures in this document affect commercial fisheries off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and northern California. No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the final rule for the 2021-2022 harvest specifications and management measures which was published on December 11, 2020 (85 FR 79880). Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, NMFS finds good cause to waive prior notice and comment.
At its April 2021 meeting, the Council recommended changing the retention ratio of lingcod to Chinook salmon in the salmon troll fishery to allow lingcod to be retained up to the status quo ten lingcod trip limit even if fewer Chinook salmon are on board. The Council recommends relieving the restriction imposed by the ratio as soon as possible, early in the salmon troll season, in an effort to reduce regulatory discards of lingcod in the salmon troll fishery north of 40°10′ N. lat. The 2020 fishery information upon which this recommendation is based, was not complete and available until early 2021, and therefore could not have been used during the development of the 2021-2022 harvest specifications and management measures.
Additionally, if the new retention ratio is not implemented until closer to the end of the Chinook salmon troll season, after proposed and final rulemaking, lingcod would continue to be discarded rather than retained. Leaving the old ratio in place would fail to meet the Councils objectives to reduce regulatory discards of lingcod, and to provide economic benefits to the salmon troll fishery while not preempting directed groundfish fisheries. Therefore, providing a comment period for this action could limit the benefits to the salmon troll fishery, and the vessels that participate in it.
Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be provided for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
For the same reasons stated above, NMFS has determined good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) so that this final rule may become effective upon publication in the
Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
Rural Housing Service, Agriculture Department (USDA).
Proposed rule.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS or Agency), proposes to amend the current regulation for the Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program (SFHGLP) to update the requirements for Federally supervised lenders, minimum net worth and experience for non-supervised lenders, approved lender participation requirements, treatment of applicants with delinquent child support payments and builder credit requirements. These changes would promote an efficient and robust management and oversight structure of lenders in the SFHGLP, strengthen underwriting practices by denying loan guarantees for applicants who are subject to administrative offset to collect delinquent child support payments and streamline requirements for screening builder-contractors by lenders.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 9, 2021.
Comments may be submitted by going to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
All comments will be available for public inspection online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
Ana Placencia, Finance and Loan Analyst, Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Division, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0784, Room 2250, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0784, telephone: (254) 721-0770; or email:
Rural Housing Service (RHS) is issuing a proposed rule to amend the Single-Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program (SFHGLP) regulations as outlined in 7 CFR part 3555, subparts B, C and D by updating the regulations to strengthen oversight and management of the growing SFHGLP portfolio. The revisions align with the standards for managing credit programs recommended by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Federally supervised lenders, minimum net worth, minimum experience for non-supervised lenders, and approved lender participation requirements. The revisions would also provide guidance for processing applicants with delinquent child support payments and relaxes builder requirements to better align with the credit program requirements of other Federal agencies.
Currently, the Agency does not impose minimum financial or experience criteria for non-supervised lenders. Non-supervised lenders (
This action will align lender approval requirements with those of other Federal credit programs and incorporates best practice recommendations outlined in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-129.
Currently, the regulation requires that all lenders approved for participation in the SFHGLP must provide additional information to demonstrate its ability to originate, underwrite and service loans. However, the Agency has determined that lenders that are Federally supervised and meet the criteria in the current § 3555.51(a)(8) have demonstrated ability and should not be required to provide additional documentation. The proposal will alleviate the process for obtaining Agency approval, reduce the required lender documentation and reflect a more streamlined process for Federally supervised lenders.
A summary of the changes includes amending 7 CFR 3555.51(a)(8) to eliminate (a)(8)(iv) because it refers to the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), which no longer exists. Furthermore, the current § 3555.51(a)(9) and (10) is intended to provide a path for lenders that are not regulated by state or federal agencies and do not meet the requirements of (a)(1) through (8) an opportunity to participate in the SFHGLP. Therefore, the Agency also proposes to amend the introductory texts of § 3555.51(a)(9) and (10) to clarify that when lenders cannot meet the demonstrated ability criteria outlined under § 3555.51(a)(1) through (8), those lenders must submit additional documentation to demonstrate their ability to originate loans.
Lenders must meet applicable requirements in order to begin and continue participation in the SFHGLP. Currently, the Agency generally reviews each lender every 2 years to ensure compliance. However, this process is not codified in the regulations. Therefore, the Agency proposes to amend § 3555.51 and add paragraph (c) under SFHGLP participation requirements, to clarify that lender eligibility will be reviewed every 2 years for continued participation in the SFHGLP. The proposal will also add a requirement that principal officers of lenders must have a minimum of 2 years of experience in originating or servicing guaranteed mortgage loans as recommended in OMB Circular A-129. In order to be deemed eligible for continued lender participation in the SFHGLP, the lender and its principal officers must continue to meet all the criteria as outlined in § 3555.51 which, as proposed to be amended, would include (a) specific experience in underwriting and servicing loans, (b) financial requirements for non-supervised lenders, and (c) SFHGLP participation requirements.
At present, § 3555.105(b)(4) and (5) require that builder-contractors have acceptable credit histories free of judgments, collections, or liens related to previous projects the builder-contractor was involved with and that they not have a criminal history. Currently, the lender is responsible for obtaining the [builder-contractor's] credit history and background checks. However, the Agency has determined that these requirements are not the industry standard. The builder-contractor's ability to participate in such projects should be based on the applicant's and lender's review of the builder-contractor's experience, reputation and financial ability to complete the project in a timely, efficient and competent manner. The proposal would remove § 3555.105(b)(4) and (5). The changes would streamline screening requirements, reduce administrative burden on the lender and would also align with other Federal programs, including the Direct Section 502 loan program, which do not have such requirements for builder-contractors. The Agency is specifically soliciting comments on the impact of eliminating the credit and criminal background checks for building contractors.
Currently, the Agency does not have explicit instructions on how lenders should treat an applicant's delinquent child support payments that are subject to collection by federal administrative offset. The Agency considers delinquent child support payments subject to administrative offset a significant derogatory obligation and an indication that an applicant does not have the reasonable ability or willingness to meet their obligations. Furthermore, it would be against the federal government's interest to guarantee a loan for an applicant from whom the federal government is simultaneously pursuing collection for a delinquent debt. Therefore, RHS proposes to amend § 3555.151(i) to specify that borrowers with delinquent child support payments subject to collection by administrative offset are ineligible unless the payments are brought current, the debt is paid in full, or otherwise satisfied.
Section 510(k) of Title V the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1480(k)), as amended, authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to promulgate rules and regulations as deemed necessary to carry out the purpose of that title.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Except where specified, all state and local laws and regulations that are in direct conflict with this rule will be preempted. Federal funds carry federal requirements. No person is required to apply for funding under SFHGLP, but if they do apply and are selected for funding, they must comply with the requirements applicable to the federal program funds. This rule is not retroactive. It will not affect agreements entered into prior to the effective date of the rule. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effect of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Agency generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million, or more, in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, subpart A, “Environmental Policies.” RHS determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on states, on the relationship between the national government and states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the states is not required.
The rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The undersigned has determined and certified by signature on this document that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since this rulemaking action does not involve a new or expanded program nor does it require any more action on the part of a small business than required of a large entity.
This program is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” as implemented under USDA's regulations at 7 CFR part 3015.
This executive order imposes requirements on RHS in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. RHS has determined that the rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If tribal leaders are interested in consulting with RHS on this rule, they are encouraged to contact USDA's Office of Tribal Relations or RD's Native American Coordinator at:
The program affected by this proposed rule is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.410, Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans (Section 502 Rural Housing Loans).
This rule contains no new reporting or recordkeeping burdens under OMB control number 0575-0179 that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Rural Development has reviewed this rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on program participants on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex, disability, marital or familial status. Based on the review and analysis of the rule and all available data, issuance of this Final Rule is not likely to negatively impact low and moderate-income populations, minority populations, women, Indian tribes or persons with disability, by virtue of their age, race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or marital or familial status.
Rural Development is committed to the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA Programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
(1) Email:
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Construction, Eligible loan purpose, Home improvement, Loan programs—housing and community development, Loan terms, Mortgage insurance, Mortgages, and Rural areas.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Agency is proposing to amend 7 CFR part 3555 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 1471
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(8) A Federally supervised lender. Acceptable sources of Federal supervision include:
(i) Being a member of the Federal Reserve System;
(ii) The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC);
(iii) The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA);
(iv) The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC);
(v) The Federal Housing Finance Board regulating lenders within the Home Loan Bank (FHLB) system.
(9) If lenders cannot meet the requirements under (a)(1) through (8), they may demonstrate its ability to originate and underwrite loans by submitting appropriate documentation, examples of which include, but are not limited to: * * *
(10) A lender that proposes to service loans that cannot meet (a)(1) through (8) must demonstrate its ability by submitting appropriate documentation, examples of which include but are not limited to: * * *
(b)
(i) A minimum adjusted net worth of $250,000, or $50,000 in working capital plus one percent of the total volume in excess of $25 million in guaranteed loans originated, serviced or purchased during the lender's prior fiscal year, up to a maximum required adjusted net worth of $2.5 million, and
(ii) one or more lines of credit with a minimum aggregate of one million dollars.
(c) SFHGLP
(1) Keep up to date, and comply with, all Agency regulations and handbooks, including all amendments and revisions of program requirements and policies. Lenders must also comply with all other applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and requirements, including those under the purview of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, such as the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending Act. Lenders who originate a minimal number loans, as determined by the Agency, in a 24 month time frame may be required to take updated training to ensure a lender's continued knowledge of the program;
(2) Regularly check Rural Development's website for new issuances related to the program;
(3) Underwrite loans according to Rural Development regulations and process and approve loans in accordance with program instructions;
(4) Review loan applications for accuracy and completeness;
(5) Ensure that applicant income limits are not exceeded;
(6) Ensure that borrowers have adequate loan repayment ability and acceptable credit histories;
(7) Ensure that loss claims include only supportable costs;
(8) Cooperate fully with Agency reporting and monitoring requirements;
(9) Comply with limitations on loan purposes, loan limitations, interest rates, and loan terms;
(10) Inform Rural Development immediately after the sale, transfer, or change of servicers of any Agency guaranteed loan;
(11) Maintain reasonable and prudent business practices consistent with generally accepted mortgage industry standards, such as maintaining fidelity bonding;
(12) Remain responsible for servicing even if servicing has been contracted to a third party;
(13) Use Rural Development, HUD, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac forms, unless otherwise approved by Rural Development;
(14) Maintain eligibility under paragraph (a) of this section;
(15) Notify Rural Development if there are any material changes in organization or practices;
(16) Be neither debarred nor suspended from participation in Federal programs, not debarred, suspended or sanctioned under state licensing and certification laws and regulations;
(17) Notify Rural Development in the event of its bankruptcy or insolvency;
(18) Remain free from default and delinquency on any debt owed to the Federal government;
(19) Allow Rural Development or its representative access to the lender's records, including, but not limited to, records necessary for on-site and desk reviews of the lender's operation and the operations of any of its agents to verify compliance with Agency regulations and guidelines;
(20) Maintain adequate operational quality control and reporting procedures to prevent fraud;
(21) Maintain complete loan files with all required documentation that is accessible by Agency upon request for review;
(22) Execute a lender's agreement provided by Rural Development;
(23) Evidence that principal officers must have a minimum of two years of experience in originating or servicing guaranteed mortgage loans; and
(24) Provide documentation as required by the Agency to be reviewed every two years for continued lender participation.
(i) * * *
(9) Applicants with delinquent child support payments subject to collection by administrative offset are ineligible unless the payments are brought current, the debt is paid in full, or otherwise satisfied.
Agency for International Development (USAID).
Proposed rule.
This regulation updates certain procedures and standards USAID follows in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).
Submit comments on or before August 9, 2021.
Address all comments for this proposed rule to Alecia S. Sillah, Supervisory FOIA Team Lead, Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Information Records Division, U.S. Agency for International Development, electronically at
Christopher A. Colbow, Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Information Records Division, U.S. Agency for International Development, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, USAID Annex, Room 2.4.0A, Washington, DC 20523; tel. 202-916-4661;
This rulemaking proposes revisions to 22 CFR part 212, USAID's regulations
Freedom of information.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, USAID proposes to revise 22 CFR part 212 to read as follows:
Pub. L. 114-185, 130 Stat. 538.
This subpart contains the rules that the United States Agency for International Development (hereinafter “USAID” or “the Agency”) follows in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552. The rules in this subpart should be read in conjunction with the text of the FOIA. Requests made by individuals for records about themselves under the Privacy Act of 1974, are processed under subpart O. Definitions of FOIA terms are referenced in subpart L.
(a)
(b)
Information that is required to be published in the
In accordance with this subpart, the Agency shall make the following materials available for public inspection in an electronic format:
(a) Operational policy in USAID's Automated Directives System (ADS) which have been adopted by the Agency and are not published in the
(b) Administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect any member of the public; and
(c) Copies of all records, regardless of form or format, which have been released pursuant to a FOIA request, and which have been requested three (3) or more times, or because of the nature of their subject matter, have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records. The Agency shall decide on a case by case basis whether records fall into this category, based on the following factors:
(1) Previous experience with similar records;
(2) The particular characteristics of the records involved, including their nature and the type of information contained in them; and
(3) The identity and number of requesters and whether there is widespread media, historical, academic, or commercial interest in the records.
(a)
(b) The Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Information and Records Division (M/MS/IRD) is the central processing point for requests for USAID records contained in Washington, DC and its overseas missions. All FOIA requests for USAID records (other than OIG records) must be submitted to this office. To make a request for the Agency's records, a requester may send request via one of the following mediums:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(e)
(a) The Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Management (M) serves as the USAID Chief FOIA Officer. The Chief FOIA Officer has overall responsibility for USAID compliance with the FOIA. The Chief FOIA Officer provides high level oversight and support to USAID's FOIA programs, and recommends adjustments to agency practices, personnel, and funding as may be necessary to improve FOIA administration, including through an annual Chief FOIA Officers Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. The Chief FOIA Officer is responsible for offering training to agency staff regarding their FOIA responsibilities; serves as the primary liaison with the Office of Government Information Services and the Office of Information Policy; and reviews, not less frequently than annually, all aspects of the Agency's administration of the FOIA to ensure compliance with the FOIA's requirements.
(b) The Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Information and Records Division (M/MS/IRD) is the component FOIA office that receives, tracks, and processes all of USAID's FOIA requests, other than requests for OIG records, to ensure transparency within the Agency.
(c) The Deputy Director, Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services (M/MS/OD) serves as the USAID FOIA Appeals Officer for requests for all USAID records other than OIG records. The FOIA Appeals Officer is responsible for receiving and acting upon appeals from requesters whose initial FOIA requests for USAID records (other than OIG records) have been denied, in whole or in part.
(d) The Deputy Inspector General serves as the USAID OIG FOIA Appeals Officer for appeals of requests for OIG records.
(e) The Chief, Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Information and Records Division (M/MS/IRD) serves as USAID's FOIA Officer and USAID's FOIA Public Liaison. The FOIA Officer is responsible for program direction, original denials, and policy decisions required for effective implementation of USAID's FOIA program. The FOIA Public Liaison serves as a supervisory official to whom a FOIA requester can raise concerns about the services received, following an initial response from the FOIA staff. In addition, the FOIA Public Liaison assists, as appropriate, in reducing delays, increasing transparency and
(f) The General Counsel to the Inspector General serves as the OIG's FOIA Officer and FOIA Public Liaison.
(g) The Supervisory FOIA Team Lead is the Principal Operations Officer within the component's FOIA office for the processing of FOIA requests and release determinations.
(h) The FOIA Specialist also known as the Government Information Specialist (GIS) is responsible for processing requests and preparing records for release when such releases are authorized by the FOIA. They do not have the authority to make denials, including “no records” responses.
(i) The General Counsel (GC), FOIA Backstop Attorney Advisor has responsibility for providing legal advice on all USAID matters regarding or resulting from the FOIA (other than OIG matters). Upon request, GC advises M/MS/IRD on release and denial decisions, and apprises the FOIA Office of all significant developments with respect to the FOIA.
(j) OIG attorneys have responsibility for providing legal advice on all requests and appeals related to OIG records.
(k) Each Attorney Advisor designated to provide legal advice to USAID Bureaus/Independent Offices (B/IOs) is responsible for providing, at M/MS/IRD's request, legal advice on FOIA requests assigned to those B/IOs.
(l) The designated FOIA Liaison Officer (FLO) in each USAID Bureau and Office is responsible for tasking and facilitating the collection of responsive records and monitoring the production of records to M/MS/IRD.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(ii) Whenever the component's FOIA office refers any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, it shall document the referral, maintain a copy of the record that it refers, and notify the requester of the referral and inform the requester of the name(s) of the agency to which the record was referred, including that agency's FOIA contact information.
(iii) Re-routing of misdirected requests. Where a component's FOIA office determines that a request was misdirected within the agency, the receiving component's FOIA office must route the request to the FOIA office of the proper component within the agency.
(3)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
(b)
(2) The component's FOIA office shall generally process requests in each track on a “first-in, first-out” basis.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(i) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited processing could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;
(ii) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity, if made by a person who is primarily engaged in disseminating information;
(iii) The loss of substantial due process rights; or
(iv) A matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government's integrity that affect public confidence.
(2) A requester who seeks expedited processing must submit a statement, certified to be true and correct, explaining in detail the basis for making the request for expedited processing. For example, under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, a requester who is not a full-time member of the news media must establish that the requester is a person whose primary activity or occupation is information dissemination, though it need not be the requester's sole occupation. Such a requester also must establish a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in the request—one that extends beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally. The existence of numerous articles published on a given subject can be helpful in establishing the requirement that there be an “urgency to inform” the public on the topic. As a matter of administrative discretion, the component's FOIA office may waive the formal certification requirement.
(3) The component's FOIA office shall notify the requester within 10 calendar days of the receipt of a request for expedited processing of its decision whether to grant or deny expedited processing. If expedited processing is granted, the request shall be given priority, placed in the processing track for expedited requests, and shall be processed as soon as practicable. If a request for expedited processing is denied, any appeal of that decision shall be acted on expeditiously.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(i) The requested information has been designated in good faith by the business submitter as information considered protected from disclosure under Exemption 4; or
(ii) The component's FOIA office has a reason to believe that the requested information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4, but has not yet determined whether the information is protected from disclosure under that exemption or any other applicable exemption.
(2) The notice shall either describe the commercial information requested or include a copy of the requested records or portions of records containing the information. In cases involving a voluminous number of submitters, notice may be made by posting or publishing the notice in a place or manner reasonably likely to accomplish it.
(d)
(1) The component's FOIA office determines that the information is exempt under the FOIA;
(2) The information has been lawfully published or has been officially made available to the public;
(3) Disclosure of the information is required by a statute other than the FOIA or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600 of June 23, 1987; or
(4) The designation made by the business submitter appears obviously frivolous, except that, in such a case, the component's FOIA office shall give the business submitter written notice of any final decision to disclose the information and must provide that notice within a reasonable number of days prior to a specified disclosure date.
(e)
(2) A business submitter who fails to respond within the time period specified in the notice shall be considered to have no objection to disclosure of the information. Information received by the component's FOIA office after the date of any disclosure decision shall not be considered by the component's FOIA office. Any information provided by a business submitter under this subpart may itself be subject to disclosure under the FOIA.
(f)
(g)
(1) A statement of the reasons why each of the business submitter's disclosure objections was not sustained;
(2) A description of the information to be disclosed; and
(3) A specified disclosure date, which shall be a reasonable time subsequent to the notice.
(h)
(i)
The component's FOIA office must inform the requester of the reasons for the denial and the requester's right to appeal the denial to the FOIA Appeals
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) An appeal ordinarily will not be adjudicated if the request becomes a matter of FOIA litigation.
(d)
(e)
(f)
The Office of Government Information Services of the National Archives and Records Administration (OGIS) is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) resource for the public and the government. Congress has charged OGIS with reviewing FOIA policies, procedures and compliance of Federal agencies and to recommend changes to the FOIA. OGIS' mission also includes providing dispute resolution services between Federal agencies and requesters. OGIS works as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. When the component's FOIA office makes a determination on a request, the component's FOIA office shall offer the services of the FOIA Public Liaison, and will notify requesters of the mediation services provided by OGIS. Specifically, the component's FOIA office will include in the component's FOIA office's notification to the requester:
(a) The right of the requester to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison of the component's FOIA office, and in the case of an adverse determination;
(b) The right of the requester to seek dispute resolution services from the FOIA Public Liaison of the component's FOIA office or the Office of Government Information Services.
The component's FOIA office shall preserve all correspondence relating to the requests it receives under this subpart, and all records processed pursuant to such requests, until such time as the destruction of such correspondence and records is authorized pursuant to Title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 4.2 of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Under no circumstances shall records be sent to a Federal Records Center, transferred to the permanent custody of NARA, or destroyed while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or civil action under the FOIA.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(2) When the component's FOIA office determines that unusual circumstances apply to the processing of a request, and the component's FOIA office has provided timely written notice to the requester, the delay is excused for an additional 10 days. If the component's FOIA office fails to comply with the extended time limit, it may not charge search fees (or for requesters with preferred fee status, may not charge duplication fees) except as provided in (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i)
(ii)
(3) If the component's FOIA office fails to comply with the time limits in which to respond to a request, and if no unusual or exceptional circumstances, as those terms are defined by the FOIA, apply to the processing of the request, it may not charge search fees, or, in the instances of requests from requesters described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, may not charge duplication fees.
(4) No search or review fees will be charged for a quarter-hour period unless more than half of that period is required for search or review.
(5) Except for requesters seeking records for a commercial use, the component's FOIA office shall provide without charge:
(i) The first 100 pages of duplication (or the cost equivalent for other media); and
(ii) The first two hours of search.
(6) When, after first deducting the 100 free pages (or its cost equivalent) and the first two hours of search, a total fee calculated under paragraph (c) of this section is $25.00 or less for any request, no fee will be charged.
(e)
(2) In cases in which a requester has been notified that the actual or estimated fees are in excess of $25.00, the request shall not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the requester commits in writing to pay the actual or estimated total fee, or designates some amount of fees the requester is willing to pay, or in the case of a noncommercial use requester who has not yet been provided with the requester's statutory entitlements, designates that the requester seeks only that which can be provided by the statutory entitlements. The requester must provide the commitment or designation in writing, and must, when applicable, designate an exact dollar amount the requester is willing to pay. The component's FOIA office is not required to accept payments in installments.
(3) If the requester has indicated a willingness to pay some designated amount of fees, but the component's FOIA office estimates that the total fee will exceed that amount, the component's FOIA office shall toll the processing of the request when it notifies the requester of the estimated fees in excess of the amount the requester has indicated a willingness to pay. The component's FOIA office shall inquire whether the requester wishes to revise the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay or modify the request. Once the requester responds, the time to respond will resume from where it was at the date of the notification.
(4) The component's FOIA office shall make available their FOIA Public Liaison or other FOIA Specialists to assist any requester in reformulating a request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(2) When the component's FOIA office determines or estimates that a total fee to be charged under this section will exceed $250.00, it may require that the requester make an advance payment up to the amount of the entire anticipated fee before beginning to process the request. The component's FOIA office may elect to process the request prior to collecting fees when it receives a satisfactory assurance of full payment from a requester with a history of prompt payment.
(3) Where a requester has previously failed to pay a properly charged FOIA fee to the component's FOIA office within 30 calendar days of the billing date, the component's FOIA office may require that the requester pay the full amount due, plus any applicable interest on that prior request, and the component's FOIA office may require that the requester make an advance payment of the full amount of any anticipated fee before the component's FOIA office begins to process a new request or continues to process a pending request or any pending appeal. If the component's FOIA office has a reasonable basis to believe that a requester has misrepresented the requester's identity in order to avoid paying outstanding fees, it may require that the requester provide proof of identity.
(4) In cases in which the component's FOIA office requires advance payment, the request shall not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the required payment is received. If the requester does not pay the advance payment within 30 calendar days after the date of the component FOIA office's fee determination, the request will be closed.
(j)
(k)
(i) Disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government, and
(ii) Disclosure of the information is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
(2) In deciding whether disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations or activities of the government, the component's FOIA office shall consider all four of the following factors:
(i) The subject of the request must concern identifiable operations or activities of the Federal Government, with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated.
(ii) Disclosure of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities in order to be “likely to contribute” to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either the same or a substantially identical form, would not contribute to such understanding where nothing new would be added to the public's understanding.
(iii) The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area as well as the requester's ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public shall be considered. It shall be presumed that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.
(iv) The public's understanding of the subject in question must be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent. However, the component's FOIA office shall not make value judgments about whether the information at issue is “important” enough to be made public.
(3) To determine whether disclosure of the requested information is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, the component's FOIA office shall consider the following factors:
(i) The component's FOIA office shall identify any commercial interest of the requester, as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. Requesters shall be given an opportunity to provide explanatory information regarding this consideration.
(ii) A waiver or reduction of fees is justified where the public interest is greater than any identified commercial interest in disclosure. The component's FOIA office ordinarily shall presume that where a news media requester has satisfied the public interest standard, the public interest will be the interest primarily served by disclosure to that requester. Disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return shall not be presumed to primarily serve the public interest.
(4) Where only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements for a waiver of fees, a waiver shall be granted for those records.
(5) Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees should be made when the request is first submitted to the component's FOIA office and should address the criteria referenced in this section. A requester may submit a fee waiver request at a later time so long as the underlying record request is pending or on administrative appeal. When a requester who has committed to pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver of those fees and that waiver is denied, the requester shall be required to pay any costs incurred up to the date the fee waiver request was received. A requester may appeal the denial of a fee waiver.
(a) The following specific fees are charged for services rendered:
(1) Commercial Use:
Search costs will be assessed even though no records may be found or even if, after review, there is no disclosure or records.
(2) Educational & Non-Commercial Scientific Institutions
(3) Representatives of the News Media
(4) All Others
(b) If copies of records are provided in other than paper format (such as on microfiche, video tape, or as electronic data files), or other than first-class mail is requested or required, the requester is charged the actual cost of providing these additional services.
As used in this part:
Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to entitle any person, as a right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.
This subpart contains the rules that the USAID follows under the Privacy Act of 1974 (PA), 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended. These rules should be read together with the text of the statute, which provides additional information about records maintained on individuals. The rules in this subpart apply to all records in systems of records maintained by the agency that are retrieved by an individual's name or personal identifier. They describe the procedures by which individuals may request access to records about themselves, request amendment or correction of those records, and request an accounting of disclosures of those records by the agency. If any records retrieved pursuant to an access request under the PA are found to be exempt from access under that Act, they will be processed for possible disclosure under the FOIA, as amended. No fees shall be charged for access to or amendment of PA records.
As used in this subpart, the following definitions shall apply:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a) An individual has the right to request that the component's FOIA office amend a record pertaining to the individual that the individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete.
(b) Requests to amend records must be in writing to the component's FOIA office, and mailed or delivered to the Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Information and Records Division (for non OIG records), or the Office of the USAID Inspector General (for OIG records) at the addresses given in § 212.5, with ATTENTION: PRIVACY ACT AMENDMENT REQUEST written on the envelope. The component's FOIA office will coordinate the review of the request with the appropriate offices of the Agency. The component's FOIA office will require verification of personal identity before it will initiate action to amend a record. Amendment requests should contain, at a minimum, identifying information needed to locate the record in question, a description of the specific correction requested, and an explanation of why the existing record is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. The request must be signed, and the requester's signature must be either notarized or made under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. The requester should submit as much pertinent documentation, other information, and explanation as possible to support the request for amendment.
(c) All requests for amendments to records shall be acknowledged within 10 working days.
(d) In reviewing a record in response to a request to amend, the Agency shall review the record to determine if it is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete.
(e) If the Agency agrees with an individual's request to amend a record, it shall:
(1) Advise the individual in writing of its decision;
(2) Amend the record accordingly; and
(3) If an accounting of disclosure has been made, advise all previous recipients of the record of the amendment and its substance.
(f) If the Agency denies an individual's request to amend a record, it shall advise the individual in writing of its decision and the reason for the refusal, and the procedures for the individual to request further review. See § 171.25 of this chapter.
(a)
(b)
(1) Disclosures made to employees within the Agency who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties; and
(2) Disclosures required under the FOIA.
(a) If the component's FOIA office denies a request for amendment of such records, the requester shall be informed of the reason for the denial and of the right to appeal the denial to the Appeals Review Panel. Any such appeal must be postmarked within 60 working days of the date of the component FOIA office's denial letter and sent to: Appeals Officer, Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services (for non OIG records), and Deputy Inspector General, Office of Inspector General (for OIG records) at the addresses given in § 212.11.
(b) Appellants should submit an administrative appeal of any denial, in whole or in part, of a request for access to the PA at the address in paragraph (a)
(c) The Appeals Review Panel will decide appeals from denials of PA amendment requests within 30 business days, unless the Panel extends that period for good cause shown, from the date when it is received by the Panel.
(d) Appeals Review Panel decisions will be made in writing, and appellants will receive notification of the decision. A reversal will result in reprocessing of the request in accordance with that decision. An affirmance will include a brief statement of the reason for the affirmance and will inform the appellant that the decision of the Panel represents the final decision of the Agency and of the right to seek judicial review of the Panel's decision, when applicable.
(e) If the Panel's decision is that a record shall be amended in accordance with the appellant's request, the Chairman—USAID'S FOIA Liaison Officer or their designee shall direct the office responsible for the record to amend the record, advise all previous recipients of the record of the amendment and its substance (if an accounting of previous disclosures has been made), and so advise the individual in writing.
(f) If the Panel's decision is that the amendment request is denied, in addition to the notification required by paragraph (d) of this section, the Chairman—USAID'S FOIA Liaison Officer or their designee-shall advise the appellant:
(1) Of the right to file a concise Statement of Disagreement stating the reasons for disagreement with the decision of the Agency;
(2) Of the procedures for filing the Statement of Disagreement;
(3) That any Statement of Disagreement that is filed will be made available to anyone to whom the record is subsequently disclosed, together with, at the discretion of the Agency, a brief statement by the component's FOIA office summarizing its reasons for refusing to amend the record;
(4) That prior recipients of the disputed record will be provided a copy of any statement of disagreement, to the extent that an accounting of disclosures was maintained.
(g) If the appellant files a Statement of Disagreement under paragraph (f) of this section, the component's FOIA office will clearly annotate the record so that the fact that the record is disputed is apparent to anyone who may subsequently access the record. When the disputed record is subsequently disclosed, the component's FOIA office will note the dispute and provide a copy of the Statement of Disagreement. The component's FOIA office may also include a brief summary of the reasons for not amending the record. Copies of the component FOIA office's statement shall be treated as part of the individual's record for granting access; however, it will not be subject to amendment by an individual under this part.
(a) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k), the Director or the Administrator may, where there is a compelling reason to do so, exempt a system of records, from any of the provisions of subsections (c)(3); (d); (e)(1); (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); and (f) of the Act if a system of records is:
(1) Subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1);
(2) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection (j)(2) of the Act: Provided, however, that if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit to which he or she would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such material, such material shall be provided to such individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or prior to the effective date of this section, under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence;
(3) Maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or other individuals pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3056;
(4) Required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records;
(5) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information, but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effective date of this section, under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence;
(6) Testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service, the disclosure of which would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process; or
(7) Evaluation material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effective date of this section, under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.
(b) Each notice of a system of records that is the subject of an exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k) will include a statement that the system has been exempted, the reasons therefore, and a reference to the
(c) The systems of records to be exempted under section (k) of the Act, the provisions of the Act from which they are being exempted, and the justification for the exemptions, are set forth in this paragraph (c):
(1)
(2)
(3)
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on a proposal to shorten by one year the STIR/SHAKEN implementation extension for small voice service providers that originate an especially large number of calls, so that such providers must implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of their networks no later than June 30, 2022. The Commission believes this proposal will protect Americans from illegal robocalls—especially illegally spoofed robocalls—by ensuring that voice service providers most likely to be the source of illegal robocalls authenticate calls sooner, allowing terminating voice service providers to know if the caller ID is legitimate and take action as appropriate, including by blocking or labeling suspicious calls. The Commission also seeks comment on how to define which small voice service providers should receive a shortened extension and on ways to monitor compliance.
Comments are due on or before July 9, 2021; reply Comments are due on or before August 9, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 17-97, by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
For further information, please contact Alexander Hobbs, Attorney Advisor, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at
This is a summary of the Commission's Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
1. In this
2. In March 2020, the Commission adopted rules requiring voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the internet Protocol (IP) portions of their voice networks by June 30, 2021. The STIR/SHAKEN framework relies on public-key cryptography to securely transmit the information that the originating voice service provider knows about the identity of the caller and its relationship to the phone number it is using throughout the entire length of the call path, allowing the terminating voice service provider to verify the information on the other end. To implement STIR/SHAKEN in its network, a voice service provider must update portions of its network infrastructure to enable it to authenticate and verify caller ID information consistent with the framework.
3. Widespread implementation of STIR/SHAKEN will provide numerous benefits for voice service providers, their subscribers, and entities involved in enforcement. Because STIR/SHAKEN utilizes a three-level attestation to signify what a voice service provider knows about the calling party, it provides vital information that can be used by terminating voice service providers to block or label illegal robocalls before those calls reach their subscribers. Indeed, the Commission safe harbor for voice service providers that offer opt-out call blocking requires that providers base their blocking decisions on reasonable analytics that take into consideration caller ID authentication information. STIR/SHAKEN information also promotes enforcement by appending information about the source of a call into the metadata of the call itself, offering instantaneous traceback without the need to go through the traceback process. STIR/SHAKEN implementation further restores trust in caller ID information and makes call recipients more willing to answer the phone, reduces disruption to E911 networks, reduces providers' compliance response costs, and reduces the government-wide costs of enforcement. In total, the Commission estimated that the monetary benefit from reducing fraud and nuisance due to illegal robocalls would exceed $13.5 billion per year.
4. The TRACED Act created a process by which the Commission could grant extensions of the June 30, 2021, implementation deadline for voice service providers that the Commission determined face “undue hardship” in implementing STIR/SHAKEN. After assessing the burdens and barriers faced by different classes of voice service providers, the Commission granted the following class-based extensions: (1) A two-year extension to small voice service providers; (2) an extension to voice service providers that cannot obtain a “certificate” until such provider is able to obtain one; (3) a one-year extension to services scheduled for section 214 discontinuance; and (4) a continuing extension for the parts of a voice service provider's network that rely on technology that cannot initiate, maintain, and terminate SIP calls until a solution for such calls is readily available. Voice service providers seeking the benefit of one of these extensions must implement a robocall mitigation program and, under new rules adopted in the
5. The Commission defined small voice service providers subject to an extension as those with 100,000 or fewer voice subscriber lines. It determined that an extension for small voice service providers until June 30, 2023, was appropriate because of their high implementation costs compared to their revenues, the limited STIR/SHAKEN vendor offerings available to them, the likelihood that costs will decline over time, and because an extension will allow small voice service providers to spread the costs over time. In adopting a blanket extension for small voice service providers, the Commission rejected arguments that not all voice service providers face identical hardships and that some of these providers may originate illegal robocalls. It determined that all small voice service providers, as a class, face undue hardship and thus a blanket extension for such providers is necessary to give them time to implement STIR/SHAKEN. The Commission also determined the extension would not unduly undermine the effectiveness of STIR/SHAKEN because small voice service providers must still implement robocall mitigation programs and small voice service providers serve only a small percentage of total voice subscribers, thus limiting potential consumer harm of an extension.
6. Following circulation of the
7. With additional time to consider the issue and new evidence indicating that certain small voice service providers are originating a high and increasing share of illegal robocalls relative to their subscriber base, we now propose to reassess the Commission's earlier determination that all small voice service providers should receive a two-year extension. Specifically, we propose to shorten by one year the extension for small voice service providers that originate an especially large number of calls, so that such providers must implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of their networks no later than June 30, 2022.
8. We propose concluding that a subset of small voice service providers is “often . . . responsible for illegal robocalls,” is originating an increasingly disproportionate amount of such calls compared to larger voice service providers, and should therefore be subject to a shortened extension.
9. A March 2021 report released by Transaction Network Services, a provider of call analytics, found that the problem of robocalls originated by certain smaller voice service providers has gotten worse: By the end of 2020, “[a]lmost 95% of high risk calls originate from non-Tier-1 telephone resources, up 3% from last year.” We seek comment on these data and our proposed conclusion that certain small voice service providers are a disproportionate source of these calls. Are commenters able to supply additional new data that address to this issue? Transaction Network Services previously stated in its 2020 comments that its data show, through the end of 2018, “87% of problematic calls originate . . . on non-Tier 1 networks” even though “the top 6 carriers represent almost 75% of . . . total calls.” We have now had additional time to evaluate this comment and other information discussed below that predates adoption of the
10. With additional time to consider the issue, we now believe that evidence from Commission filings of providers subject to government-wide enforcement actions also supports a finding that a subset of small voice service providers are at heightened risk of originating a disproportionate number of illegal robocalls relative to their subscriber base. For example, in January 2020, the FTC sent letters to 19 providers regarding their possible involvement in “assisting and facilitating” unlawful robocalls. Data submitted to the Commission reflect that most of these providers appear to fall under the Commission definition of “small voice service provider.” Of the 19 providers that received letters, five submitted FCC Form 477, and of those five, only one had more than 100,000 access lines. Sixteen of the providers that received a January 2020 FTC letter also submitted an FCC Form 499. These forms, on average, showed end-user revenues of approximately $3.4 million, indicating that most of these 16 providers had fewer than 100,000 lines. (A provider with $3.4 million in revenue would be realizing just $2.83 in revenue per month per subscriber if it had exactly 100,000 subscribers. Because we believe $2.83 to be unrealistically low, we think it reasonable to infer that these providers, on average, have fewer than 100,000 subscribers and a higher revenue per subscriber.) This additional information supports our proposed conclusion that a subset of small voice service providers are at heightened risk of disproportionately originating robocalls. We seek comment on the data and assumptions underlying this conclusion. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we can rely on FCC Form 477 line count data to determine whether providers fall within our 100,000 line small voice service provider definition and whether it is reasonable to conclude that FCC Form 499 revenue data is predictive of provider line counts. Are there other data we should consider?
11. We also seek comment on whether the proportion of robocall traffic originated by small voice service providers has increased since the adoption of the
12. Consumer complaints received by the Commission make clear that unwanted robocalls remain a vexing problem. We invite commenters to provide other information about trends in illegal robocalls. We also seek comment on the effect that the Commission's efforts have had on illegal robocalling in general and, specifically, on illegal robocalls originated by small voice service providers. The available evidence indicates that, at least in part due to the TRACED Act and Commission action, the percentage of STIR/SHAKEN-attested traffic has increased, with Transaction Network Services estimating that it had increased from 21 percent in January 2020 to 35 percent in December 2020. We seek comment on these data and trends in STIR/SHAKEN deployment, particularly among small voice service providers.
13. In light of the foregoing data and additional time to consider USTelecom's submission, we propose shortening the small voice service provider extension for small voice service providers that originate an especially large amount of calls. (As discussed below, we propose only to shorten the small voice service provider extension, and not the other extensions the Commission previously granted that could also apply to certain small voice service providers.
14. Although the Commission previously found that a two-year blanket extension for all small voice service providers was reasonable in part because they only serve a small percentage of subscribers, we propose revisiting this conclusion and determining that it is not a sufficient basis for continuing to provide a two-year extension for all such providers. We seek comment on this proposal. In particular, given the evidence indicating a subset of small voice service providers are at heightened risk of originating a significant percentage of illegal robocalls, in our preliminary view, a small quantity of subscribers should not alone be a sufficient basis for a two-year extension for all small voice service
15. We specifically propose shortening the extension for small voice service providers that originate an especially large amount of traffic, and we seek comment on this proposal. We believe such providers are more likely to originate unlawful robocalls because, to originate large-scale robocall campaigns, it is necessary to originate a large number of calls. Further, we anticipate that rapid STIR/SHAKEN implementation by those small voice service providers that originate the most traffic is likely to be more beneficial than faster implementation by small voice service providers that originate fewer calls because providers that originate more traffic will authenticate more calls. In addition, in our preliminary view it is appropriate to tailor our alteration of the extension as narrowly as possible to those small voice service providers most likely to originate unlawful robocalls to avoid unnecessarily burdening small providers. We seek comment on this initial analysis. Are there additional reasons to curtail the extension specifically for small voice service providers that originate an especially large amount of traffic? Are there reasons that shortening the extension for this specific subset of small voice service providers would be especially harmful? Should we curtail the extension for different or additional subsets of small voice service providers?
16. To what degree would hastening STIR/SHAKEN implementation reduce unlawful robocalls, and how much would Americans benefit? When the Commission adopted the STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate, it estimated the benefits would exceed $13.5 billion per year and noted a host of specific benefits to consumers, providers, and the government. The data above indicate that much of this benefit will not be realized if the subset of small voice service providers that are most likely to originate robocalls does not implement STIR/SHAKEN. We believe that such a significant public benefit justifies shortening the extension for this subset of small voice service providers under the TRACED Act's balancing test. We seek comment on the size of the benefit that will result from shortening the extension for such providers and our conclusion that the benefit justifies a shortened extension pursuant to the TRACED Act. We note that several third-party robocall monitoring and protection services believe there will be a substantial benefit to accelerating small voice service providers' STIR/SHAKEN implementation. For example, in its March 2021 report, Transaction Network Services argues that, given their disproportionate role originating robocalls, small voice service providers need to implement STIR/SHAKEN for the Commission's rules “to have a significant impact.” Similarly, Robokiller, a spam call and protection service, concluded in a February 2021 report that because “smaller carriers have exemptions lasting . . . until 2023 . . . [w]ithout a unified front from all carriers, STIR/SHAKEN cannot be completely effective.” We seek comment on these assertions.
17. We also seek comment on the burdens and barriers of implementing STIR/SHAKEN for the subset of small voice service providers for which we propose shortening the extension. Do these small voice service providers face less hardship to implement STIR/SHAKEN than other small voice service providers? Have implementation costs declined as more providers and vendors develop solutions to meet our June 30, 2021 deadline for larger voice service providers? Is accelerated implementation feasible? Are many small voice service providers already implementing STIR/SHAKEN even though the deadline is not until June 30, 2023? As of April 2021, 154 providers have obtained certificates from the Secure Telephone Identity Governance Authority (STI-GA), allowing them to participate in the exchange of authenticated traffic with other providers. Does this number of providers with certificates suggest that some small voice service providers have begun the process of STIR/SHAKEN implementation? From 2014-2018, providers that make the initial long-distance call path choice for more than 100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines were obligated to file rural call completion reports, and 55 providers filed such reports in 2017, implying that approximately 100 providers with fewer than 100,000 lines have already obtained certificates from the STI-GA. To what extent did small voice service providers rely on a two-year extension in planning their network costs, and would shortening the extension unduly harm their reliance interests? Should we permit the full two year extension for any voice service provider in the subset who can document substantial reliance? What specific actions might qualify as reliance that should factor into our decision? We anticipate that reliance interests may be minimal because small voice service providers were put on notice that we might revisit USTelecom's proposal at a later time, and we seek comment on this opinion. Do any identified burdens outweigh the benefits associated with requiring a subset of small voice service providers that is particularly likely to originate unlawful robocalls to implement STIR/SHAKEN more rapidly?
18. What costs would small voice service providers generally, and those specifically that originate an especially large amount of traffic, incur by accelerating their deployment to meet a deadline prior to June 30, 2023? USTelecom argues that small voice service providers that originate a “disproportionate” amount of traffic “are unlikely to have the same resource constraints the Commission cited” in adopting the two-year small voice service provider extension. We seek comment on this assertion. For example, do small voice service providers that originate an especially large amount of traffic have equipment that is generally newer and able to handle greater traffic volumes and, therefore, will likely require fewer resources to implement STIR/SHAKEN? Are their networks more streamlined and therefore do not require the time and effort to implement STIR/SHAKEN across multiple IP architectures? Would such providers spread their STIR/SHAKEN implementation costs over fewer pieces of equipment per dollar of revenue?
19. We propose curtailing only the small voice service provider extension for entities that originate a substantial amount of traffic and not shortening or eliminating any other extensions that the Commission adopted. We seek comment on this proposal. In our preliminary view, this approach is appropriate because it avoids imposing burdens on this subset of small voice service providers greater than the burdens we impose on the largest voice service providers. The TRACED Act directs that we “shall grant” an extension to a voice service provider that materially relies on a non-IP network and the extension must extend “until a call authentication protocol has been developed for calls delivered over non-internet protocol networks and is reasonably available.” Because we have not yet made such a finding, we cannot curtail the non-IP network extension.
20. We seek comment on how to define small voice service providers that originate an especially large amount of calls and thus are at heightened risk of being a source of unlawful robocalls. In considering possible definitions, we seek to identify one or more definitional prongs that most accurately identify, in
21.
22. If we were to set a numerical threshold, we seek comment on whether the appropriate numerical call threshold is 500 calls per day or another numerical threshold. USTelecom argues that its 500 call threshold is meant to distinguish between “the number of calls that a particularly prolific subscriber could make in a given day and more automated technology” indicative of illegal robocalling. Does a 500 call per day threshold accurately capture this dividing line? Would an alternative call threshold better identify those voice service providers most likely to be the source of unlawful robocalls? For example, would a 1,000 calls-per-day threshold ensure that small voice service providers unlikely to be the source of unlawful robocalls would continue to benefit from a two-year extension? Would a lower threshold of, for example, 250 calls ensure that we capture all small voice service providers that are likely to originate a significant number of illegal robocalls?
23. We propose that if we adopt a definition based on calls per day for a single line, we would employ the term “on average” rather than “in the normal course of business” because we preliminarily believe the former is more precise. We seek comment on this view and on the meaning of “in the normal course of business.” We seek comment on how we should measure the calls per day on average. Over what period would we require small voice service providers to calculate the average? Should the average be based on sporadic samples or a single continuous period? Should we exclude certain time periods, such as weekends or holidays? Instead of average calls per day, should we examine the median number of calls each day over a particular period? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?
24. Instead of examining the average number of calls over time, should we look at small voice service providers that reach a call threshold on a single line on a single day? Would this approach provide additional certainty and reduce the possibility for gaming? Rather than looking at the average number of calls on a single line, should we look at an average—or other measures—across a larger number of lines? If so, what call volume metric should we use and why? For example, could we look at the number of calls per line averaged over all lines or those lines with more originating than terminating calls? Would an approach that focuses on the number of calls averaged over multiple lines be less likely to be subject to manipulation than a test that looks at the total number of calls over a single line? We also seek comment on whether any threshold we adopt for a shortened extension that relies on “lines” or “subscriber lines” needs to take into account the current real-world understanding of those terms for voice service providers, particularly VoIP providers not serving end-users over their own or leased last-mile facilities. Do these providers' understanding of “lines” differ from how we have traditionally measured “lines” and “voice subscriber lines?” If so, how should this understanding affect any calls-per-line threshold we adopt?
25. If we adopt a numerical threshold of calls, we seek comment on whether we should exclude calls from certain entities that have a valid business reason to make a large number of calls, so that certain calls would not count toward any numerical threshold we establish. For example, should we exempt calls from doctor's offices, schools, or businesses such as insurance companies? Would a small voice service provider be able to determine whether its customer fell within any of the categories we adopt? We also seek comment on whether we should exempt from the threshold calls that fall under an exemption pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). We seek comment on whether calls that meet some or all of the TCPA exemptions should not count against any numerical call threshold we adopt. Are the interests served by the TCPA exemptions the same as or similar to the interests served by exempting such calls from the call threshold?
26.
27. We seek comment on how to measure revenue. Should we measure only revenue attributable to voice service, revenue from all telecommunications and information services, including wholesale services, or some other combination? If only revenue attributable to voice service, should we measure certain sub-categories of voice service such as interstate, international, or toll? Are robocalls likely to originate out of state and, if so, should we exclude intrastate revenue if such revenue is unlikely to be associated with illegal robocalling?
28. We seek comment on whether half of revenue is an appropriate dividing line. For example, should we adopt a 75 percent non-mass market revenue threshold? Would such a threshold better balance the interest in shortening the extension for those voice service providers most likely to initiate
29. In determining a voice service provider's share of non-mass market revenue, we seek comment on whether it would be more appropriate to measure revenue from non-mass market customers, non-mass market services, or a combination of the two. For example, should we only measure revenue from non-mass market services attributable to non-mass-market customers or attributable to all customers? The
30.
31. Is the relative proportion of originating to terminating traffic, and not just the absolute level of originating traffic, relevant to whether a voice service provider is likely to be originating unlawful robocalls? If so, should we shorten the extension for small voice service providers that have a certain ratio of originating to terminating traffic? If so, what should that ratio be?
32. Are “all-IP” small voice service providers more likely to be the source of unwanted robocalls? If so, should we curtail the extension for all-IP small voice service providers, particularly if their STIR/SHAKEN implementation costs are lower? How would we define “all-IP” under this approach? How should we prevent voice service providers from gaming such a definition by retaining a small TDM network or a TDM network element?
33. Should we shorten the extension for possible or actual violations of our rules or the law? How would we implement such a standard during the pendency of the extension period? Should we curtail the extension for any small voice service providers on the red-light list, which lists entities that are delinquent in debts owed to the Commission? Should we curtail the extension for small voice service providers subject to a federal agency action or letter related to the origination or transmission of unlawful calls? For example, should we authorize the Enforcement Bureau to curtail the extension for small voice service providers it notifies of illegal traffic under our rules? The two-year extension relates to the duties of voice service providers as the originators of traffic, but a number of providers have been subject to inquiries and enforcement actions in their role as gateway or intermediate providers. We seek comment on whether these kinds of inquiries and enforcement actions should bear on a small voice service provider's extension length, and whether that should extend to enforcement associated with traffic the provider merely transmitted and did not originate. Should we shorten the extension for those small voice service providers that the Commission, in consultation with the Industry Traceback Group, has determined are “uncooperative” or subject to a certain threshold number of traceback requests? How would we implement such an approach? For example, should the Industry Traceback Group provide the Commission with a list of providers that meet this criterion by a date certain?
34. Are voice service providers with a higher revenue per customer more likely to be the source of unlawful robocalls? If so, should we adopt a definition, or a prong of a definition, based on revenue per customer? If so, what should the threshold be? Should we examine small voice service providers with relatively high percentages of revenue in certain categories on their FCC Form 499 or similar submissions to the Commission? Are high levels of interstate, international, or toll revenue compared to total revenues indicative of small voice service providers likely to be the source of unlawful robocalls?
35. Should a certain class or classes of voice service providers that are unlikely to originate robocalls retain the two-year extension while we eliminate the extension for all other classes? For example, should only small voice service providers that are also rural local exchange carriers retain a two year extension on the basis that such providers are “generally not involved in illegal robocalling?” Should only those rural local exchange carriers that do not offer services typically used by illegal robocallers retain a two-year extension? Are there other classes of providers that are unlikely to originate illegal robocalls and should therefore retain a two-year extension? For example, are providers that offer voice service over physical lines to end-user customers less likely to engage in illegal robocalling and if so, should they retain the two-year extension?
36. We seek comment generally on whether small voice service providers track the information for the definitional criteria that we may adopt. For example, do voice service providers retain and track revenue and calls-per-line data? Can the Commission rely on data voice service providers track and submit for other purposes? Could we rely on revenue data from FCC Form 499 and line count information from FCC Form 477 to measure revenue or line-count-related criteria by market segment? If voice service providers do not track data necessary to determine whether they fall within the criteria we adopt, would it be overly burdensome for them to begin to track this data solely for the purpose of
37.
38. In addition, we propose that small voice service providers that did not meet the criteria during the examination period would not be subject to a shortened extension if they meet the criteria at a later date. We propose this approach given the limited time between any Order we release subsequent to this Further Notice and the June 30, 2023, end date of the original two-year extension. We seek comment on this proposal.
39. We propose to shorten the extension for those small voice service providers that originate an especially large amount of traffic from two years to one year, with a new compliance deadline of June 30, 2022. We seek comment on this proposal. We seek specific comment on whether a one-year extension is a “reasonable period of time” for this subset of small voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN given the “burdens and barriers to implementation” that they face and the likelihood they are the source of illegal robocalls. We anticipate that a one-year extension balances the public interest in reducing unlawful calls while allowing affected providers sufficient time to implement STIR/SHAKEN. For example, we note above that affected providers may have a lower burden to implement STIR/SHAKEN than other small voice service providers. If so, do such providers face less hardship than other small voice service providers? Even if they do not have a lower burden, do the significant benefits of requiring those small voice service providers most likely to be responsible for illegal robocalls to comply with STIR/SHAKEN mean that a one-year extension for those providers is nevertheless a “reasonable period of time”?
40. Should we reduce the extension by more or less than our proposal? Would a shorter reduction in the extension (
41. We also seek comment on alternative approaches to altering the extension period. For example, instead of measuring the reduction against the June 30, 2021, compliance deadline, should we set the new compliance deadline to a certain interval following the effective date of any Order released pursuant to this Further Notice? Under this approach, affected small voice service providers would be required to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of their networks a certain number of days following the Order's effective date. If we adopt this approach, what should the appropriate interval be? Are there other approaches we should consider? For example, should we set the end of the extension for affected providers to the later of (1) a specific date (
42. We seek comment on how to monitor and evaluate compliance by the small voice service providers that are subject to the proposed curtailed extension. In particular, we seek comment on small voice service providers' duty to notify the Commission of their updated extension status and whether they should submit data demonstrating that status.
43.
44.
45. We believe the Commission has authority for curtailing the extension for a subset of small voice service providers under section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the TRACED Act. That section gives us authority to grant extensions of the caller ID authentication implementation deadline “for a reasonable period of time” upon a finding of undue hardship. Under that section, we granted the current two-year small voice service provider extension that we now propose to modify. We believe that, in considering whether a hardship is “undue” under the TRACED Act, as well as whether an extension is for a “reasonable period of time,” it is appropriate to balance the hardship of compliance due to the “the burdens and barriers to implementation” faced by a voice service provider or class of voice service providers with the benefit to the public of implementing STIR/SHAKEN expeditiously; and that, consequently, we have the authority to grant a shorter extension for voice service providers that present a higher risk of originating illegal robocalls or that may also face a lesser hardship than other small voice service providers. We seek comment on this interpretation as well as any alternatives.
46. Finally, we acknowledge that the Commission has a duty under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when it changes direction, as we propose to do here, to explain the reasons for that change. Specifically, while we do not need to demonstrate why the reasons for a shortened extension for a subset of small voice service providers are “better than the reasons” for a two year extension for all small voice service providers, we must show that there are “good reasons” for our change, and that the change is permissible under the relevant statute; in this case, the TRACED Act. As explained above, we propose to rely both on information that postdates the
47.
48.
49.
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this
2. In order to continue the Commission's work combating illegal robocalls, the
3. The
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and by the rule revisions on which the Notice seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that,
10.
11.
12.
13. The Commission's own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, as of August 31, 2018 there are 265 Cellular licensees that will be affected by our actions. The Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19. The
20. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.
21. We seek comment on our proposal in the
22. None.
23. Accordingly,
24.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to require the use of electronic logbooks in Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries and on Class C and D vessels in the American Samoa pelagic longline fishery. This proposed rule is intended to reduce human error, improve data accuracy, save time for fishermen and NMFS, and provide more rigorous monitoring and forecasting of catch limits.
NMFS must receive comments by July 9, 2021.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0014, by either of the following methods:
•
•
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared a regulatory amendment that provides additional information and analyses that support this proposed rule. Copies are available from the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, or
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Michael D. Tosatto (see
Lynn Rassel, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5184.
NMFS and the Council manage the Hawaii (shallow-set and deep-set) and America Samoa longline fisheries under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP). The implementing Federal regulations for these fisheries include a suite of conservation and management requirements. Among the requirements are limited access permits, carrying at-sea observers, vessel monitoring system (VMS), daily catch and effort reporting, and a host of other gear and operational requirements.
Current regulations require vessel operators to record and submit catch information in paper logbooks, with the option to use electronic logbooks. Currently, if using paper logbooks, NMFS requires vessel operators to record catch information daily and submit the logbooks within 72 hours of returning to port after a fishing trip. If using electronic logbooks, NMFS requires vessel operators to record catch information daily and submit electronic logs within 24 hours after the end of a fishing day. In the event of a system failure, vessel operators are required to submit electronic or paper logbooks within 72 hours of returning to port after a fishing trip.
There are approximately 144 active vessels in the Hawaii longline fisheries (shallow-set and deep-set combined) and approximately 12 active Class C and D vessels in the American Samoa longline fishery. As of March 2021, approximately 94 vessels in the Hawaii fisheries are voluntarily using electronic logbooks. No vessels are using electronic logbooks in the American Samoa fishery.
Paper logbooks require manual handling and data entry. Collecting, collating, storing, and entering data manually is costly, inefficient, and prone to errors. Additionally, NMFS and the Council manage U.S. longline bigeye tuna catch limits and allocation limits, which require forecasts of bigeye tuna catches throughout the fishing season to inform in-season management. Errors in recording and delay in data entry can result in near-term forecasting inaccuracy, potentially resulting in overages and underages of bigeye tuna catch with respect to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) catch limits. Any overage in the WCPFC Convention Area would be applied to the catch limit in the subsequent year, thereby reducing the catch limit for the following year. Conversely, if forecasting inaccuracy leads to an underage, the fishery would not be allowed to carry-over the unused catch limit to the subsequent year, resulting in a reduction in catch available to the fishery and the Nation.
In light of these inefficiencies, the Council in October 2018 recommended that NMFS implement mandatory electronic logbooks in the Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries. In June 2019, the Council requested that the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center convene an Electronic Technologies Steering Committee to address electronic logbook implementation challenges. In June 2020, the Council considered requiring electronic logbooks in the Hawaii and American
Pursuant to the Council's recommendation, NMFS proposes to require the use of electronic logbooks for vessels with Federal permits for the Hawaii fishery, and Class C and D Federal permits for the American Samoa fishery. This proposed rule would continue to meet existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements set forth in 50 CFR 665.14.
Under the proposed action, vessel operators would be required to use a NMFS-certified electronic logbook (consisting of a tablet computer and software application) to record catch, effort, location, and other information, and submit it within 24 hours of the completion of a fishing day. In the event of technology malfunction with hardware, software, or transmission, NMFS would require that logbook data be submitted on paper or electronically within 72 hours of the end of the affected fishing trip.
If this rule is finalized, it would be effective no earlier than 30 days after the date of publication in the
NMFS would be responsible for purchasing, providing, and maintaining the tablets, software, and data transmission at no cost to fishery participants. In addition to providing the electronic logbooks, NMFS would provide vessel operators with individual user accounts and train them to use the system properly.
If a third party were to develop an electronic logbook system in the future, NMFS would work with prospective provider(s) and fishery participants to review and evaluate those systems and, if appropriate, certify them for use in the fisheries. NMFS has not determined at this time whether it would provide alternative third-party systems to the fisheries at no cost, or if the fishery participants would be required to assume those costs.
Near real-time reporting via electronic logbooks would improve timeliness in catch reporting and add precision and reduce catch forecast inaccuracies. This proposed action would ensure that Hawaii and American Samoa longline fishermen have the opportunity to maximize sustainable catch of bigeye tuna and species, facilitate the implementation of in-season accountability measures, and meet market demands, consistent with the conservation needs of the stocks. This proposed action would also support the NMFS Policy Directive on Electronic Technologies (ET) and Fishery Dependent Data Collection (Electronic Technology Policy Directive 04-115; May 7, 2019) to complement and/or improve existing fishery-dependent data collection programs to achieve the most cost-effective and sustainable approach that ensures alignment of management goals, data needs, funding sources and regulations.
NMFS will consider public comments on this proposed rule and will announce the final rule in the
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation for the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed action would apply to pelagic longline fishing vessels holding Hawaii longline permits and American Samoa Class C and D longline permits under the FEP. Vessel operators would be required to record fishing data using electronic, and to submit electronic reports within 24 hours after completion of each fishing day via the NMFS-provided VMS. NMFS would provide the electronic logbooks and training. In the case of a hardware, software, or transmission failure, NMFS would allow submission of electronic or paper report forms within 72 hours of the end of each fishing trip. Implementing electronic logbooks would take advantage of emerging technology that could reduce human error, improve data accuracy, save time for fishermen and NMFS, and provide more rigorous monitoring and forecasting of catch limits and application of in-season accountability measures. This action is needed to ensure that the Hawaii and American Samoa longline vessels have the opportunity to maximize sustainable catch of bigeye tuna and other Western Pacific pelagic management unit species under the FEP to meet market demands consistent with the conservation needs of the stocks.
Because NMFS is paying the costs of the hardware, software, data transmission, and training under the existing voluntary, and proposed mandatory, electronic reporting system, there will be minimal burdens on the fishery participants. There may be a brief training and learning period for operators to become familiar with recording and submitting electronic reports. There would be no new reporting elements for fishery participants. Only the method of reporting would change for some operators who are not already using the electronic system.
In 2019, Hawaii longline vessels landed approximately 32.8 million lb (14,874 t) of pelagic fish valued at $94.8 million. With 146 vessels making either a deep- or shallow-set trip in 2019, the ex-vessel value of pelagic fish caught by Hawaii-based longline fisheries averaged almost $649,000 per vessel. In 2019, American Samoa-based longline vessels landed approximately 2.9 million lb (1,315 t) of pelagic fish valued at $3.9 million; albacore made up the largest proportion of pelagic longline commercial landings. With 17 active longline vessels in 2019, the ex-vessel value of pelagic fish caught by the American Samoa fishery averaged almost $230,000 per vessel.
Complete data are not yet available for 2020, but preliminary information indicates that the longline fisheries experienced a temporary decrease in revenue and other fishery performance measures, possibly resulting from travel restrictions. In Hawaii, declines in tourism led to a reduction in demand for associated goods and services including locally caught seafood. These, in turn, affected fishery landings, fish prices, and revenues. Average revenues, landings, and prices from March through July dropped 45 percent, 34 percent, and 15 percent, respectively, compared to averages for 2015-2019 (NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science
NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels permitted federally under the FEP are small entities,
Under this proposed rule, the Hawaii and American Samoa longline fisheries are not expected to expand substantially or change their operations (
For the reasons above, NMFS does not expect the proposed action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This rule revises the existing requirements for the collection of information under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0648-0214 Pacific Islands Logbook Family of Forms by requiring the use of electronic logbooks in Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries and on Class C and D vessels in the American Samoa pelagic longline fishery. This revision is not expected to affect the number of respondents or anticipated responses and is expected to reduce the number of burden hours and burden cost to fishermen. Public reporting burden for completing an electronic logbook form for a completed fishing day is estimated to average 15 minutes 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.
Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information at
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond or, nor shall any person by 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.
Administrative practice and procedure, Hawaii, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Longline, Pacific Islands, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 665 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b)
(1)
(i) Paper records. The operator of a fishing vessel subject to the requirements of §§ 665.124, 665.142, 665.162, 665.203(a)(2), 665.224, 665.242, 665.262, 665.404, 665.424, 665.442, 665.462, 665.603, 665.624, 665.642, 665.662, 665.801, 665.905, 665.935, or 665.965 must maintain on board the vessel an accurate and complete record of catch, effort, and other data on paper report forms provided by the Regional Administrator, or electronically as specified and approved by the Regional Administrator, except as required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section or as allowed in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section.
(ii) Electronic records.
(A) The operator of a fishing vessel subject to the requirements of § 665.801(b) or a Class C or D vessel subject to the requirements of § 665.801(c) must maintain on board the vessel an accurate and complete record of catch, effort, and other data electronically using a NMFS-certified electronic logbook, and must record and transmit electronically all information specified by the Regional Administrator within 24 hours after the completion of each fishing day.
(B) After the Regional Administrator has notified a permit holder subject to this section of the requirement to submit records electronically, and after the vessel has acquired the necessary NMFS-certified equipment, the vessel and any vessel operator must use the electronic logbook. A vessel operator must obtain an individually assigned user account from NMFS for use with the electronic logbook.
(C) Permit holders and vessel operators shall not be assessed any fee or other charges to obtain and use an electronic logbook that is owned and provided by NMFS. If a permit holder or vessel operator subject to this section does not use a NMFS-owned electronic logbook, the permit holder and operator must provide and maintain an alternative NMFS-certified electronic logbook.
(D) If a vessel operator is unable to maintain or transmit electronic records
(iii) The vessel operator must record on paper or electronically all information specified by the Regional Administrator within 24 hours after the completion of each fishing day. The information recorded must be signed and dated, or otherwise authenticated, in the manner determined by the Regional Administrator, and be submitted or transmitted via an approved method as specified by the Regional Administrator, and as required by this section.
(iv) In lieu of the requirements in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the operator of a fishing vessel registered for use under a Western Pacific squid jig permit pursuant to the requirements of § 665.801(g) may participate in a state reporting system. If participating in a state reporting system, all required information must be recorded and submitted in the exact manner required by applicable state law or regulation.
(2)
(i) If fishing was authorized under a permit pursuant to §§ 665.142, 665.242, 665.442, 665.404, 665.162, 665.262, 665.462, 665.662, or 665.801, and if the logbook information was not submitted to NMFS electronically within 24 hours of the end of each fishing day while the vessel was at sea, the vessel operator must submit the original logbook information for each day of the fishing trip to the Regional Administrator within 72 hours of the end of each fishing trip, except as allowed in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) If fishing was authorized under a PRIA bottomfish permit pursuant to § 665.603(a), PRIA pelagic troll and handline permit pursuant to § 665.801(f), crustacean fishing permit for the PRIA (Permit Area 4) pursuant to § 665.642(a), or a precious coral fishing permit for Permit Area X-P-PI pursuant to § 665.662, the original logbook form for each day of fishing within EEZ waters around the PRIA must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of the end of each fishing trip.
(iv) If fishing was authorized under a permit pursuant to §§ 665.124, 665.224, 665.424, 665.624, 665.905, 665.935, or 665.965, the original logbook information for each day of fishing must be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 30 days of the end of each fishing trip.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the California Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via web teleconference on Wednesday, August 18, 2021, from 12:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m. Pacific Time for the purpose of discussing the topic and focus of their next project.
The meeting will be held on:
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at
Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the public WebEx registration link listed above. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Brooke Peery at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available at:
Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are also directed to the Commission's website,
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Maryland Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (ET) on Tuesday, July 6, 2021. The purpose of the meeting is to continue planning the accessibility and affordability of water in Maryland.
Tuesday, July 6, 2021; 12:00 p.m. (ET).
Barbara Delaviez at
The meeting is available to the public through the web link above. If joining only via phone, callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with conference details found through registering at the web link above. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Barbara Delaviez at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the California Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via web teleconference on Thursday, July 22, 2021, from 12:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m. Pacific Time for the purpose of discussing the topic and focus of their next project.
The meeting will be held on:
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at
Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the public WebEx registration link listed above. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Brooke Peery at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available at:
Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are also directed to the Commission's website,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Washington Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via web teleconference on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, from 2:30 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Pacific Time for the purpose of discussing their report on use of force and potential barriers to police accountability.
The meeting will be held on:
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at
Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the public WebEx registration link listed above. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Brooke Peery at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available at:
Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are also directed to the Commission's website,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the Washington Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will hold a meeting via Webex on Tuesday, June 22, 2021, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time for the purpose of gathering testimony on their project on use of force and potential barriers to police accountability.
The meeting will be held on:
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer, (DFO) at
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meetings at
Please click on the “Committee Meetings” tab. Records generated from these meetings may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the California Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via web teleconference on Wednesday, June 23, 2021, from 12:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m. Pacific Time for the purpose of discussing the topic and focus of their next project.
The meeting will be held on:
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at
Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the public WebEx registration link listed above. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Brooke Peery at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available at:
Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are also directed to the Commission's website,
On April 14, 2021, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the City of San Jose, grantee of FTZ 18, requesting an expansion of Subzone 18F, subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 18, on behalf of Lam Research Corporation, in Newark, California.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that the sole producer and/or exporter subject to this administrative review made sales of certain emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from Brazil at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019.
Applicable June 9, 2021.
Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4406.
On January 26, 2021, Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by the order is certain ESB rubber from Brazil. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 4002.19.0015 and 4002.19.0019 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). ESB rubber is described by Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Registry No. 9003-55-8. This CAS number also refers to other types of styrene butadiene rubber. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. For a full description of the scope of the order,
All issues raised by parties in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
We have made no changes to the weighted-average dumping margin for ARLANXEO Brasil. For detailed information,
As a result of this review, Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the final results of an administrative review within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where the respondent reported the entered value of their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by ARLANXEO Brasil for which it did not know the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
Consistent with its recent notice,
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for ARLANXEO Brasil S.A. will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 19.61 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Create Trading Co., Ltd. (Create Trading), the sole company under review, made no shipments of certain steel nails from Taiwan during the period of review (POR), July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. We invite interested parties to comment on this preliminary determination of no shipments.
Applicable June 9, 2021.
Suzanne Lam, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0783.
On July 1, 2020, Commerce published in the
On September 21, 2020, the petitioner timely withdrew its request for administrative review of all companies it originally requested, except for one
On November 23, 2020, the petitioner submitted comments regarding Create Trading's statement of no sales.
The merchandise covered by this order is certain steel nails from Taiwan. The certain steel nails subject to the order are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7317.00.55.02, 7317.00.55.03, 7317.00.55.05, 7317.00.55.07, 7317.00.55.08, 7317.00.55.11, 7317.00.55.18, 7317.00.55.19, 7317.00.55.20, 7317.00.55.30, 7317.00.55.40, 7317.00.55.50, 7317.00.55.60, 7317.00.55.70, 7317.00.55.80, 7317.00.55.90, 7317.00.65.30, 7317.00.65.60 and 7317.00.75.00. Certain steel nails subject to this order also may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7907.00.60.00, 8206.00.00.00 or other HTSUS subheadings. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written product description, available in the Appendix to this notice, remains dispositive.
Create Trading reported that it had no reviewable sales during the POR because its unaffiliated producers had knowledge of the final destination of the subject merchandise that they produced and sold to Create Trading, and which Create Trading resold to U.S. customers during the POR. Create Trading provided sales documentation, such as invoices and packing lists from its unaffiliated producers, as well as accounting records as evidence in support of its claim.
Commerce finds that, based on the clarification in the 2003
Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
As discussed above, we preliminarily determine that Create Trading was not the first party in the transaction chain to have knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United States, and thus Create Trading is not considered the exporter of subject merchandise during the POR for purposes of this review. Consistent with the 2003
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be in effect for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 2.16 percent, the all-others cash deposit rate established in the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and sections 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) and 351.221(b)(4).
The merchandise covered by this order is certain steel nails having a nominal shaft length not exceeding 12 inches.
Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the nail using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, needle, chisel and blunt or no point. Certain steel nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated in any manner using any material.
Excluded from the scope of this order are certain steel nails packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is less than 25. If packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, certain steel nails remain subject merchandise if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is equal to or greater than 25, unless otherwise excluded based on the other exclusions below.
Also, excluded from the scope are certain steel nails with a nominal shaft length of one inch or less that are (a) a component of an unassembled article, (b) the total number of nails is sixty (60) or less, and (c) the imported unassembled article falls into one of the following eight groupings: (1) Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as windows, French windows and their frames; (2) builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as doors and their frames and thresholds; (3) swivel seats with variable height adjustment; (4) seats that are convertible into beds (with the exception of those classifiable as garden seats or camping equipment); (5) seats of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials; (6) other seats with wooden frames (with the exception of seats of a kind used for aircraft or motor vehicles); (7) furniture (other than seats) of wood (with the exception of (i) medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; and (ii) barbers' chairs and similar chairs, having rotating as well as both reclining and elevating movements); or (8) furniture (other than seats) of materials other than wood, metal, or plastics (
Also, excluded from the scope of this order are steel nails that meet the specifications of
Also, excluded from the scope of this order are nails suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, whether or not threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.20.00 and 7317.00.30.00.
Also, excluded from the scope of this order are nails having a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 on the Rockwell Hardness C scale (HRC), a carbon content greater than or equal to percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools.
Also, excluded from the scope of this order are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made up of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side.
Also, excluded from the scope of this order are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheading 7317.00.10.00.
Certain steel nails subject to this order are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.55.02, 7317.00.55.03, 7317.00.55.05, 7317.00.55.07, 7317.00.55.08, 7317.00.55.11, 7317.00.55.18, 7317.00.55.19, 7317.00.55.20, 7317.00.55.30, 7317.00.55.40, 7317.00.55.50, 7317.00.55.60, 7317.00.55.70, 7317.00.55.80, 7317.00.55.90, 7317.00.65.30, 7317.00.65.60 and 7317.00.75.00. Certain steel nails subject to this order also may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7907.00.60.00, 8206.00.00.00 or other HTSUS subheadings. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from Malaysia.
Applicable June 9, 2021.
Nathan James, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5305.
On March 25, 2021, Commerce published the
A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
The period of investigation is January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
The products covered by this investigation are wind towers from Malaysia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
Commerce was unable to conduct on-site verification of the information relied upon in making its final determination in this investigation. However, we took additional steps in lieu of on-site verification to verify the information relied upon in making this final determination, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act.
The subsidy programs under investigation, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues raised by parties, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
In making this final determination, Commerce is relying, in part, on facts otherwise available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act. For a full discussion of our application of facts available,
Based on our review and analysis of the record and the comments received from parties, we made certain changes to the countervailable subsidy rate calculation for CS Wind. For a discussion of these changes,
Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination, Commerce shall determine an all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any rates that are zero,
In this investigation, Commerce calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for CS Wind that is not zero,
Commerce determines that the following countervailable subsidy rates exist:
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this final 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 the
As a result of our
We are directing CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of the subject merchandise from Malaysia that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty order and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of wind towers from Malaysia no later than 45 days after our final determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to the APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 771(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation consists of certain wind towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind towers support the nacelle and rotor blades in a wind turbine with a minimum rated electrical power generation capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts and with a minimum height of 50 meters measured from the base of the tower to the bottom of the nacelle (
A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together (or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating, end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or without flanges, doors, or internal or external components (
Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or external components attached to the subject merchandise.
Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor blades, regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. Also excluded are any internal or external components which are not attached to the wind towers or sections thereof, unless those components are shipped with the tower sections.
Merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 7308.20.0020 or 8502.31.0000. Wind towers of iron or steel are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 when imported separately as a tower or tower section(s). Wind towers may be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 when imported as combination goods with a wind turbine (
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) published in the
Eliza Siordia, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3878.
In the
On February 1, 2018, Commerce published in the
We hereby notify the public in this notice we should have identified the all-others subsidy rate as 22.41 percent. We intend to notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection of this correction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 9, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Mark Turner at
This request is for extension of a current information collection.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operates a minimum of four meteorological satellite imagery transmission systems, two from geostationary operational environmental (GOES) satellites and two from polar-orbiting television infrared operational (TIROS) satellites. In addition, legacy backup and standby polar-orbiting satellites continue to be operated as their health permits. The data transmitted are available worldwide, and any user can establish a ground receiving station for reception of the data without the prior consent, notification, or other approval from NOAA. With such an open access policy, it is currently not possible to have a comprehensive understanding of the range and numbers of the data users and application of the data received and/or used. The purpose of collecting the information contained in the “Questionnaire” is to satisfy the following objectives: (1) To comply with international agreements such as the Department of Commerce (DOC)/NOAA's memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), so that NOAA can provide environmental satellite data and processed satellite data products to the public domain, and (2) To improve Government efficiencies of data dissemination using cost-saving technologies to minimize the expenditure of personnel and financial resources. The NOAA Policy on Partnerships in the Provision of Environmental Information is also pertinent to this information collection. This policy was developed to strengthen the partnership among government, academia, and the private sector, which provides the nation with high quality environmental information.
The collection of information from a respondent is initiated when an individual contacts National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) via letter,
Information will be collected via an online questionnaire.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service, operating as AmeriCorps, has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) Employers of National Service Enrollment Form and Annual Survey for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Sharron Walker-Tendai, at 202-606-3904 or by email to
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of AmeriCorps, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
AmeriCorps seeks to renew the current information collection. The revisions are intended to streamline questions, making it easier for organizations to complete the form. The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. AmeriCorps seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is expires on July 31, 2022.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 9, 2021.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, (202) 377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 9, 2021. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Written comments should include DOCKET # EERE-2021-VT-00XX in the subject line of the message and may be sent to: Mr. Mark Smith, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-3V), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mr. Mark Smith, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-3V), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 287-5151,
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DOE, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of DOE's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Take notice that on June 2, 2021, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2021), Southwest Gas Corporation (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against El Paso Natural Gas Company, LLC (EPNG or Respondent), alleging that the Respondent failed to comply with the Natural Gas Act, the Commission's regulations, the Commission's precedent, and EPNG's tariff when EPNG declared a Critical Operating Condition for the period from February 15, 2021 to February 17, 2021, all as more fully explained in its complaint.
The Complainant certify that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts listed for Respondent in the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of extended comment period.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of settlement on April 9, 2021, FRL 10020-84-Region 4, concerning the JCC Environmental Superfund Site located in Picayune, Mississippi. The settlement addresses recovery of CERCLA costs for a cleanup action performed by the EPA at the Site. The settling parties listed with the settlement on the Agency's website was incomplete. The complete listing of parties is now available via the below web address. The agency will be extending the comment period 30 days after the date of this publication.
The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until July 9, 2021. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact information provided in this notice. Comments may also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:
Paula V. Painter at (404) 562-8887 Email:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States (Task Force) will hold its next meeting via live internet link.
July 8, 2021. The meeting will come to order at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
The meeting will be held via conference call and be available to
Jesse Jachman, Designated Federal Officer, Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-2668, or email:
The meeting will be held on July 8, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. EDT and may be viewed live, by the public, at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the fourth meeting of the World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee (WAC) will be held on Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. EDT. Prior to this fourth WAC meeting, the Advisory Committees' Informal Working Groups (IWG-1, IWG 2, IWG-3, and IWG-4) will have their meetings as set forth below. Due to exceptional circumstances, the fourth WAC meeting and its IWG meetings will be convened as virtual meetings with remote participation only. The meetings are open to the public. This fourth WAC meeting will consider status reports and recommendations from its Informal Working Groups (IWG-1, IWG-2, IWG-3, and IWG-4) concerning preparation for the 2023 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-23). A draft agenda of the fourth WAC meeting and the IWG meeting schedule with participation information are attached. The IWG meeting agendas and audience participation information, all scheduled meeting dates and updates can be found at the Commission's WRC-23 website (
IWG-4: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 (11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. EDT); IWG-3: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 (1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. EDT); IWG-4: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 (11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. EDT); IWG-3: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 (1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. EDT); IWG-4: Thursday, July 29, 2021 (11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. EDT); IWG-3: Thursday, July 29, 2021 (1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. EDT); IWG-1: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 (11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EDT); IWG-2: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 (3:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. EDT); IWG-1: Tuesday, September 2, 2021 (11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EDT); IWG-2: Tuesday, September 2, 2021 (1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. EDT); and the 4th WAC Meeting: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 (11:00 a.m. EDT).
4th WAC Meeting:
Dante Ibarra, Designated Federal Official, World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee, FCC International Bureau, Global Strategy and Negotiation Division, at
The FCC established the Advisory Committee to provide advice, technical support and recommendations relating to the preparation of United States proposals and positions for the 2023 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-23).
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons of the fourth meeting of the Advisory Committee and its Informal Working Groups scheduled meetings. The Commission's WRC-23 website (
The proposed agenda for the fourth WAC meeting and IWG meeting schedule with participation information are as follows:
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 9, 2021.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Recordkeeping Provisions Associated with Stress Testing Guidance (FR 4202; OMB No. 7100-0348). The Board has extended the FR 4202 without revision to ensure compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). However, whether and how any changes should be made to the guidance in light of recent amendments made by the Board to its stress testing rules is under consideration. The Board will publish any proposed changes to the FR 4202 via a separate notice for comment.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
The Stress Testing Guidance recommends that banking organizations (i) have a stress testing framework that includes clearly defined objectives, well-designed scenarios tailored to the banking organization's business and risks, well-documented assumptions, conceptually sound methodologies to assess potential impact on the banking organization's financial condition, informative management reports, and recommended actions based on stress test results; and (ii) have policies and procedures for a stress testing framework. These recordkeeping activities are collections of information under the PRA.
An organization should have written policies, approved and annually reviewed by the board, that direct and govern the implementation of the stress testing framework in a comprehensive manner. Policies, along with procedures to implement them, should:
• Describe the overall purpose of stress testing activities;
• articulate consistent and sufficiently rigorous stress testing practices across the entire organization;
• indicate stress testing roles and responsibilities, including controls over external resources used for any part of stress testing (such as vendors and data providers);
• describe the frequency and priority with which stress testing activities should be conducted;
• indicate how stress test results are used and by whom, and
• be reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure that stress testing practices remain appropriate and keep up to date with changes in market conditions, organization products and strategies, organization exposures and activities, the organization's established risk appetite, and industry stress testing practices.
Because the collections of information associated with the FR 4202 do not involve the submission of information to the Board, no issues of confidentiality would normally arise. To the extent that the Board collects such information during an examination of the banking organization, confidential treatment may be afforded to that information under exemption 8 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)), which protects information collected as part of the Board's supervisory process. Additionally, individual respondents may request confidential treatment of information pursuant to exemption 4 of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), which protects “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential.” The Board will treat such information as confidential to the extent permitted by law, including the FOIA.
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 9, 2021.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Basel II Interagency Pillar 2 Supervisory Guidance (FR 4199; OMB No. 7100-0320).
Comments must be submitted on or before August 9, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by FR 4199 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to
A copy of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) OMB submission, including the reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be available at
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.
Because the collections of information associated with the guidance is maintained by each institution, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) would only be implicated if the Board obtained such records as part of the examination or supervision of a banking organization. In the event the records are obtained by the Board as part of the examination or supervision of a financial institution, this information would be considered confidential pursuant to exemption 8 of the FOIA, which protects information contained in “examination, operating, or condition reports” obtained in the bank supervisory process. In addition, the information may also be kept confidential under exemption 4 of the FOIA, which protects trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is both customarily and actually treated as private by the respondent.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the International Applications and Prior Notifications under Subpart B of Regulation K (FR K-2; OMB No. 7100-0284).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
The Board does not routinely publicly release information collected through the FR K-2. To the extent a respondent submits nonpublic commercial or financial information in connection with the FR K-2, which is both customarily and actually treated as private by the respondent, the respondent may request confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Application for a Foreign Organization to Acquire a U.S. Bank or Bank Holding Company (FR Y-3F; OMB No. 7100-0119).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
To the extent a respondent submits nonpublic commercial or financial information in connection with the FR Y-3F, which is both customarily and actually treated as private by the respondent, the respondent may request confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with Changes in Foreign Investments (Made Pursuant to Regulation K) (FR 2064; OMB No. 7100-0109).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
The records related to the FR 2064 are retained at banking organizations. However, in the event the records are obtained by the Board as part of an examination or supervision of a financial institution, this information may be considered confidential pursuant to exemption 8 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which protects information contained in “examination, operating, or condition reports” obtained in the bank supervisory process.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than June 24, 2021.
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
CMS regulations at 42 CFR 413.24(f)(4) require that each hospice submit an annual cost report to their contractor in a standard American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) electronic cost report (ECR) format. A hospice submits the ECR file to contractors using a compact disk (CD), flash drive, or the CMS approved Medicare Cost Report E-filing (MCREF) portal, [URL:
CMS requires the Form CMS-1984-14 to determine a hospice's reasonable costs incurred in furnishing medical services to Medicare beneficiaries. CMS uses the Form CMS-1984-14 for rate setting; payment refinement activities, including developing a market basket; Medicare Trust Fund projections; and program operations support. Additionally, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) uses the hospice cost report data to calculate Medicare margins (a measure of the relationship between Medicare's payments and providers' Medicare costs) and analyze data to formulate Medicare Program recommendations to Congress.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the “State SNAP Agency NDNH Matching Program Performance Report,” with minor revisions, for an additional three years. State agencies administering their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provide the annual performance report to OCSE in accordance with the computer matching agreement between state SNAP agencies and OCSE. The current OMB approval expires on February 28, 2022.
To submit comments and obtain copies of the proposed collection of information, email
To fulfill OMB requirements, OCSE periodically reports performance measurements demonstrating how the use of information in the NDNH supports OCSE's strategic mission, goals, and objectives. OCSE will provide the annual SNAP performance outcomes to OMB.
42 U.S.C. 653(j)(10); 5 U.S.C. 552a; and Pub. L. 111-352.
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by emailing
Activities include site visits to each program to speak with program leaders, partners and key stakeholders, front-line staff, and participants as well as program and administrative data collection. The evaluation will contribute to understanding the effects of FUP on project participants' child welfare involvement. This evaluation is part of a larger project to help ACF build the evidence base in child welfare through rigorous evaluation of programs, practices, and policies. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds and administers FUP. The study will also contribute to HUD's understanding of how housing can serve as a platform for improving quality of life.
42 U.S.C. 676.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following 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.
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 grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following 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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Child Psychopathology and Developmental Disabilities Study Section, June 17, 2021, 09:00 a.m. to June 18, 2021, 08:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. 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 National Asthma Education Prevention Program Coordinating Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 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 applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Request for comments.
We are requesting your comments on the planned consolidation of redundant Coast Guard boat stations. Many stations were established at a time when boats lacked engines and were powered by oars and paddles. With modern boat operating speeds and improved direction finding technology, many calls for Coast Guard assistance can be responded to by multiple units significantly faster than when these boat stations were first established. The combination of significantly improved response times, along with an overall reduction in rescue calls due to boating safety improvements throughout the nation, has resulted in a number of boat stations becoming redundant. This consolidation will result in a more robust response system by increasing staffing levels and capacity at select nearby boat stations. Such a consolidation creates synergy and more opportunities for boat operators to properly train instead of missing training opportunities while standing ready to respond to calls that do not come.
Written comments and related material may be submitted to the Coast Guard personnel specified below. Your comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 3, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2021-0238 using the Federal rulemaking portal at
For information about this document, please call or email Todd Aikins, Coast Guard Office of Boat Forces, 202-372-2463,
In October of 2017, the GAO issued report GAO-18-9, titled “Actions Needed to Close Stations Identified as Overlapping and Unnecessarily Duplicative.” This GAO report, a copy of which is in the docket for this notice, recommends the consolidation of 18 boat stations. Due to environmental and operational factors, the Coast Guard is not considering all 18 boat stations identified in the GAO report for consolidation this year. Instead, we anticipate consolidating four stations, with implementation notionally scheduled for fiscal year 2022. These stations have been identified because there are other units nearby capable of responding to cases in these areas, and because these four stations respond to a low number of cases. We do not anticipate any adverse effect on Coast Guard response capability. We expect enhanced proficiency of boat operators as well as a less complicated response system.
The following seasonal stations, Stations-Small Scituate, MA; Holland, MI; North Superior, MN; and Beach Haven, NJ; have been identified for consolidation with neighboring stations. These are seasonal stations are detached subunits of larger parent stations.
This consolidation is expected to result in a more robust response system by increasing staffing levels and capacity at select nearby boat stations. Such a consolidation creates synergy and more opportunities for boat operators to properly train.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal portal at
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to
Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, and public comments, will be in our online docket at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of application; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, from the National Science Foundation and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, propose to authorize nonlethal, incidental take by harassment of small numbers of the Southeast Alaska stock of northern sea otters between July 1, 2021, and August 31, 2021. The applicants have requested this authorization for take that may result from high-energy seismic surveys in the Queen Charlotte Fault region of Southeast Alaska. Seismic surveys are being conducted to characterize crustal and uppermost mantle velocity structure, fault zone architecture and rheology, and seismicity in the Queen Charlotte Fault. We estimate that this project may result in the nonlethal incidental take of up to 27 northern sea otters from the Southeast Alaska stock. This proposed authorization, if finalized, will be for up to 49 takes of 27 northern sea otters by Level B harassment only. No injury or mortality is expected or will be authorized.
Comments on the proposed incidental harassment authorization and draft environmental assessment must be received by July 9, 2021.
•
•
Marine Mammals Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS-341, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, by email at
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361,
The term “take,” as defined by the MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 1362(13)). Harassment, as defined by the MMPA, means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (the MMPA defines this as “Level A harassment”), or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (the MMPA defines this as “Level B harassment”).
The terms “negligible impact,” “small numbers,” and “unmitigable adverse impact” are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 18.27, the Service's regulations governing take of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to specified activities. “Negligible impact” is defined as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to and is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. “Small numbers” is defined as a portion of a marine mammal species or stock whose taking would have a negligible impact on that species or stock. However, we do not rely on that definition, as it conflates the terms “small numbers” and “negligible impact,” which we recognize as two separate and distinct requirements (see
If the requisite findings are made, we will issue an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA), which sets forth the following: (i) Permissible methods of taking; (ii) other means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses by coastal-dwelling Alaska Natives; and (iii) requirements for monitoring and reporting take.
On December 2, 2019, the National Science Foundation and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (hereafter
The specified activity (the “project”) consists of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory's (L-DEO) 2021 Marine Geophysical Surveys by the Research Vessel (R/V)
The R/V
The seismic array produces broadband energy that ranges from a few hertz (Hz) to kilohertz (kHz). However, all but a small fraction of the energy is focused in the 10-300 Hz range (Tolstoy
The receiving system will consist of a 15-kilometer (km; 9.3-mile (mi)) hydrophone streamer and approximately 60 short-period and 28 broadband Ocean Bottom Seismometer (OBS) devices, which will be primarily deployed from a second vessel, the Canadian Coast Guard R/V
Additional project details may be reviewed in the application materials available as described under
The northern sea otter is the only marine mammal under the Service's jurisdiction that normally occupies the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Sea otters in Alaska are represented by three stocks. Those in the Northeast Pacific Ocean belong to the Southeast Alaska stock. Two other stocks occur in Southcentral and Southwest Alaska. Detailed information about the biology of the Southeast Alaska stock can be found in the most recent stock assessment report (USFWS 2014), which can be found at:
Sea otters may be distributed anywhere within the specified project area other than upland areas; however, they generally occur in shallow water near the shoreline. They are most commonly observed within the 40-m (131-ft) depth contour (USFWS 2014), although they can be found in areas with deeper water. Ocean depth is
The most recent estimate of the number of sea otters in the Southeast Alaska stock is 25,584 otters (standard error = 3,679; Tinker
Otter densities within the Southeast Alaska stock have been calculated for 24 subdivisions (Tinker
The documented home range sizes and movement patterns of sea otters illustrate the types of movements that could be seen among otters responding to the proposed activities. Sea otters are non-migratory and generally do not disperse over long distances (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984). They usually remain within a few kilometers of their established feeding grounds (Kenyon 1981). Breeding males stay for all or part of the year in a breeding territory covering up to 1 km (0.62 mi) of coastline while adult females have home ranges of approximately 8 to 16 km (5 to 10 mi), which may include one or more male territories. Juveniles move greater distances between resting and foraging areas (Lensink 1962; Kenyon 1969; Riedman and Estes 1990; Estes and Tinker 1996). Although sea otters generally remain local to an area, they are capable of long-distance travel. Otters in Alaska have shown daily movement distances greater than 3 km (1.9 mi) at speeds up to 5.5 km per hour (km/hr; 3.4 mi per hour (mi/h)) (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984).
We do not expect the operations outlined in the Description of Specified Activities and Geographic Region and described in the applicant's petition to lead to take from vessel presence or anthropogenic presence. The tracklines for the vessels will not physically enter low-density or high-density sea otter habitat. Thus, we do not anticipate human-otter interactions that would lead to Level B harassment or other forms of take.
The operations have the potential to result in take of sea otters by harassment from noise. Here, we characterize “noise” as sound released into the environment from human activities that exceeds ambient levels or interferes with normal sound production or reception by sea otters. The terms “acoustic disturbance” or “acoustic harassment” are disturbances or harassment events resulting from noise exposure. Potential effects of noise exposure are likely to depend on the distance of the otter from the sound source and the level of sound the otter receives. Temporary disturbance or localized displacement reactions are the most likely to occur. No lethal take is anticipated, nor can the Service authorize lethal take through an Incidental Take Authorization. Therefore, none will be authorized.
Whether a specific noise source will affect a sea otter depends on several factors, including the distance between the animal and the sound source, the sound intensity, background noise levels, the noise frequency, the noise duration, and whether the noise is pulsed or continuous. The actual noise level perceived by individual sea otters will depend on distance to the source, whether the animal is above or below water, atmospheric and environmental conditions as well as aspects of the noise emitted.
From the discussion below, we expect the actual number of otters experiencing Level B take due to harassment by noise to be 27 or fewer. While individual otters may be taken more than once, the total number of incidental takes of sea otters is expected to be less than 49.
The NSF/L-DEO's 36-airgun array will produce sound frequencies that fall within the hearing range of sea otters and will be audible to animals. Controlled sound exposure trials on southern sea otters (
Exposure to high levels of sound may cause changes in behavior, masking of communications, temporary or permanent changes in hearing sensitivity, discomfort, and injury to marine mammals. Unlike other marine mammals, sea otters do not rely on sound to orient themselves, locate prey, or communicate underwater; therefore, masking of communications by anthropogenic sound is less of a concern than for other marine mammals. However, sea otters do use sound for communication in air (especially mothers and pups; McShane
Thresholds have been developed for some marine mammals above which exposure is likely to cause behavioral disturbance and injuries (Southall
California sea lions (otariid pinnipeds) have a frequency range of hearing most similar to that of southern sea otters (Ghoul and Reichmuth 2014) and provide the closest related proxy for
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) established noise exposure criteria for identifying underwater noise levels capable of causing Level A harassment (injury) of otariid pinnipeds (NMFS 2018). Sea otter-specific criteria have not been determined. However, because of their biological similarities, we assume that NMFS' noise exposure criteria for otariid pinniped injury is a suitable surrogate for sea otter impacts. Those criteria are based on estimated levels of sound exposure capable of causing a permanent shift in sensitivity of hearing (
The NMFS (2018) criteria for sound exposure incorporate two metrics of exposure: The peak level of instantaneous exposure likely to cause PTS, and the cumulative sound exposure level during a 24-hour period (SELcum). They also include weighting adjustments for the sensitivity of different species to varying frequencies. The PTS-based injury criteria were developed from theoretical extrapolation of observations of temporary threshold shifts (TTS) detected in lab settings during sound exposure trials. Studies were summarized by Finneran (2015). For otariid pinnipeds, PTS is predicted to occur at 232 dB peak or 203 dB SEL
The NMFS criteria for take by Level A harassment represents the best available information for predicting injury from exposure to underwater sound among pinnipeds, and in the absence of data specific to otters, we assume these criteria also represent appropriate exposure limits for Level A take of sea otters.
The NMFS (2018) criteria do not identify thresholds for avoidance of Level B take. For pinnipeds, the NMFS has adopted a 160-dB threshold for Level B take from exposure to impulse noise and a 120-dB threshold for continuous noise (NMFS 1998; HESS 1999; NMFS undated). These thresholds were developed from observations of mysticete (baleen) whales responding to airgun operations (
We have evaluated these thresholds and determined that the Level B threshold of 120-dB for non-impulsive noise is not applicable to sea otters. The 120-dB threshold is based on studies conducted by Malme
Although no specific thresholds have been developed for sea otters, several alternative behavioral response thresholds have been developed for pinnipeds. Southall
Based on the lack of sea otter disturbance response or any other reaction to the 1980's playback studies and the absence of a clear pattern of disturbance or avoidance behaviors attributable to underwater sound levels up to about 160 dB resulting from low-frequency broadband noise, we assume 120 dB is not an appropriate behavioral response threshold for sea otters exposed to continuous underwater noise.
Thresholds based on TTS have been used as a proxy for Level B harassment (
Exposure to impulsive sound levels greater than 160 dB can elicit behavioral changes in marine mammals that may lead to detrimental disruption of normal behavioral routines. Thus, using information available for other marine mammals as a surrogate and taking into consideration the best available scientific information about sea otters, the Service has set 160 dB of received underwater sound as a threshold for Level B take by disturbance for sea otters for this proposed IHA based on the work of Ghoul and Reichmuth (2012a, b), McShane
The area in which underwater noise in the frequency range of sea otter hearing will exceed thresholds is termed
The available studies of sea otter behavior suggest that sea otters may be more resistant to the effects of sound disturbance and human activities than other marine mammals. For example, at Soberanes Point, California, Riedman (1983) examined changes in the behavior, density, and distribution of southern sea otters that were exposed to recorded noises associated with oil and gas activity. The underwater sound sources were played at a level of 110 dB and a frequency range of 50 Hz to 20 kHz and included production platform activity, drillship, helicopter, and semi-submersible sounds. Riedman (1983) also observed the sea otters during seismic airgun shots fired at decreasing distances from the nearshore environment (50, 20, 8, 3.8, 3, 1, and 0.5 nautical miles (nm)) at a firing rate of 4 shots per minute and a maximum air volume of 4,070 in
While at the surface, turbulence from wind and waves attenuates noise more quickly than in deeper water, reducing potential noise exposure (Greene and Richardson 1988; Richardson
Sea otters generally show a high degree of tolerance to noise. In another study using prerecorded sounds, Davis
In locations that lack frequent human activity, sea otters appear to have a lower threshold for outward signs of disturbance. Sea otters in Alaska have exhibited escape behaviors in response to the presence and approach of vessels. Behaviors included diving or actively swimming away from a boat, hauled-out sea otters entering the water, and groups of sea otters disbanding and swimming in multiple different directions (Udevitz
Individual sea otters in Southeast Alaska will likely show a range of responses to noise from NSF/L-DEO's survey equipment and vessels. Some otters will likely show startle responses, change direction of travel, diving, or premature surfacing. Sea otters reacting to survey activities may divert time and attention from biologically important behaviors, such as feeding. Some animals may abandon the survey area and return when the disturbance has ceased. Based on the observed movement patterns of wild sea otters (
The reactions of wildlife to disturbance can range from short-term behavioral changes to long-term impacts that affect survival and reproduction. When disturbed by noise, animals may respond behaviorally (
These examples illustrate direct effects on survival and reproductive success, but disturbances can also have indirect effects. Response to noise disturbance is considered a nonlethal stimulus that is similar to an antipredator response (Frid and Dill 2002). Sea otters are susceptible to predation, particularly from killer whales and eagles, and have a well-developed antipredator response to perceived threats. For example, the presence of a harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) did not appear to disturb sea otters, but they demonstrated a fear response in the presence of a California sea lion by actively looking above and beneath the water (Limbaugh 1961).
Although an increase in vigilance or a flight response is nonlethal, a tradeoff occurs between risk avoidance and energy conservation. An animal's reactions to noise disturbance may cause stress and direct an animal's energy away from fitness-enhancing activities such as feeding and mating (Frid and Dill 2002; Goudie and Jones 2004). For example, southern sea otters in areas with heavy recreational boat traffic demonstrated changes in behavioral time budgeting showing decreased time resting and changes in haul-out patterns and distribution (Benham
Changes in behavior resulting from anthropogenic disturbance can include increased agonistic interactions between individuals or temporary or permanent abandonment of an area (Barton
Physical and biological features of habitat essential to the conservation of sea otters include the benthic invertebrates (urchins, mussels, clams, etc.) that otters eat and the shallow rocky areas and kelp beds that provide cover from predators. Important sea otter habitat in the NSF/L-DEO project area include coastal areas within the 40-m (131-ft) depth contour where high densities of otters have been detected. The MMPA allows the Service to identify avoidance and minimization measures for effecting the least practicable impact of the specified activity on important habitats. Geophysical surveys conducted by NSF/L-DEO may impact sea otters within this important habitat, however, the project is not likely to cause lasting effects to habitat.
The primary prey species for sea otters are sea urchins, abalone, clams, mussels, crabs, and squid (Tinker and Estes 1999). When preferential prey are scarce, otters will also eat kelp, turban snails (Tegula spp.), octopuses (
Several recent reviews and empirical studies have addressed the effects of noise on invertebrates (Carroll
The effects of increased sound levels on benthic invertebrate larvae have been mixed. Desoto
While these studies provide evidence of deleterious effects to invertebrates as a result of increased sound levels, Carroll
The proposed activities will occur near marine subsistence harvest areas used by Alaska Natives from the villages of Pelican, Sitka, and Port Alexander. Between 1989 and 2019, approximately 5,617 sea otters were harvested from these villages, averaging 187 per year (although numbers from 2019 are preliminary). The large majority (95 percent) were taken by hunters based in Sitka. However, harvest activity takes place in coves where the sounds produced by survey equipment will not harass sea otters.
The proposed project area will not occur in inshore waters and, therefore, will avoid significant overlap with subsistence harvest areas. NSF/L-DEO's activities will not preclude access to hunting areas or interfere in any way with individuals wishing to hunt. NSF/L-DEO will coordinate with Native villages and Tribal organizations to identify and avoid potential conflicts. If any conflicts are identified, NSF/L-DEO will develop a Plan of Cooperation (POC) specifying the particular steps necessary to minimize any effects the project may have on subsistence harvest.
If an IHA for the NSF/L-DEO project is issued, it must specify means for affecting the least practicable adverse impact on sea otters and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance and the availability of sea otters for subsistence uses by coastal-dwelling Alaska Natives.
In evaluating what mitigation measures are appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses, we considered the manner and degree to which the successful implementation of the measures are expected to achieve this goal. We considered the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), the likelihood that the measures will be effective if implemented, and the likelihood of effective implementation. We also considered the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation (
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the activities, the applicants have proposed mitigation measures including, but not limited to, the following:
• Development of a marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan;
• Establishment of shutdown and monitoring zones;
• Visual mitigation monitoring by designated Protected Species Observers (PSO);
• Site clearance before startup;
• Soft-start procedures;
• Shutdown procedures; and
• Vessel strike avoidance measures.
These measures are further specified under Proposed Authorization, part
In the previous section, we discussed the components of the project activities that have the potential to affect sea otters. Here, we describe and categorize the physiological and behavioral effects that can be expected based on documented responses to human activities observed during sea otter studies. We also discuss how these behaviors are characterized under the MMPA.
As we described in
• Swimming away at a fast pace on belly (
• Repeatedly raising the head vertically above the water to get a better view (spyhopping) while apparently agitated or while swimming away;
• In the case of a pup, repeatedly spyhopping while hiding behind and holding onto its mother's head;
• Abandoning prey or feeding area;
• Ceasing to nurse and/or rest (applies to dependent pups);
• Ceasing to rest (applies to independent animals);
• Ceasing to use movement corridors;
• Ceasing mating behaviors;
• Shifting/jostling/agitation in a raft so that the raft disperses;
• Sudden diving of an entire raft; or
• Flushing animals off a haulout.
This list is not meant to encompass all possible behaviors; other situations may also indicate Level B take.
Reactions capable of causing injury are characterized as Level A harassment events. The proposed action is not anticipated to result in Level A harassment due to exposure of otters to noise capable of causing PTS. However, it is also important to note that, depending on the duration and severity of the above-described Level B behaviors, such responses could constitute take by Level A harassment. For example, while a single flushing event would likely indicate Level B harassment, repeatedly flushing sea otters from a haulout may constitute Level A harassment.
We assumed all animals exposed to underwater sound levels that meet the acoustic exposure criteria shown in Table 1 will experience, at a minimum, take by Level B harassment due to exposure to underwater noise. To estimate the number of otters that may be exposed to these sound levels, we worked closely with the applicant to create spatially explicit zones of ensonification around the proposed survey transects based on expected sound source levels and attenuation models. We determined the number of otters present in the ensonification zones using density information generated by Tinker
Zones of Level A and Level B ensonification were created using the proposed R/V
The Level A and Level B isopleths were then used to create spatially explicit ensonification zones surrounding the proposed project transects using ArcGIS Pro (2018). Using the
As we described in Description of Marine Mammals in the Specified Area, sea otters are overwhelmingly observed (95 percent) within the 40-m (131-ft) depth contour, although they can be found in areas with deeper water. Thus, high-density sea otter habitat was delineated by the 40-m (131-ft) depth contour, and low-density otter habitat was between the 40-m and 100-m (131-ft to 328-ft) depth contours. Habitat was further divided into subregions established by Tinker
The Level A ensonification zone did not overlap with either high- or low-density habitat areas. To determine the amount (km
We estimate 49 takes of 27 sea otters by Level B harassment will occur due to NSF/L-DEO's proposed high-energy seismic surveys. In order to conduct this analysis and estimate the potential amount of Level B take, several critical assumptions were made.
Otter density was calculated using a Bayesian hierarchical model created by Tinker
Estimation of ensonification zones used sound attenuation models that focused on absorption and dispersion rather than reflection and refraction. Our models assumed that points of land intercepting high-level noise will effectively attenuate sound levels above 160 dB, and sea otters in areas behind those land features (in land shadows) will be exposed to sound less than 160 dB. This assumption is adequate for this analysis given the offshore location of the survey transects.
Finally, we estimated the repeated take of a portion of the otters affected by the proposed action due to the presence of the R/V
We estimate 49 instances of take by Level B harassment of 27 northern sea otters from the Southeast Alaska stock due to behavioral responses or TTS associated with noise exposure. These levels represent a small proportion of the most recent stock abundance estimate for the Southeast Alaska stock. Take of 27 otters is less than one percent of the best available estimate of the current population size of 25,584 animals in the Southeast Alaska stock (Tinker
Sea otters exposed to sound project-produced sounds are likely to respond with temporary behavioral modification or displacement. Project activities could temporarily interrupt the feeding, resting, and movement of sea otters. Because activities will occur during a limited amount of time and in a localized region, the impacts associated with the project are likewise temporary and localized. The anticipated effects are primarily short-term behavioral reactions and displacement of sea otters near active operations.
Sea otters that encounter the specified activity may exert more energy than they would otherwise due to temporary cessation of feeding, increased vigilance, and retreat from the project area. We expect that affected sea otters will tolerate this exertion without measurable effects on health or reproduction. Most of the anticipated takes will be due to short-term Level B harassment in the form of TTS, startling reactions, or temporary displacement. Chronic exposure to sound levels that cause TTS may lead to PTS (which would constitute Level A injury). While more research into the relationship between chronic noise exposure and PTS is needed (Finneran 2015), it is likely that the transition from temporary effects to permanent cellular damage occurs over weeks, months, or years (Southall
With the adoption of the measures proposed in NSF/L-DEO's application and required by this proposed IHA, estimated take was reduced.
For small numbers analyses, the statute and legislative history do not expressly require a specific type of numerical analysis, leaving the determination of “small” to the agency's discretion. In this case, we propose a finding that the NSF/L-DEO project may result in approximately 49 incidental takes of 27 otters from the Southeast Alaska stock. This represents less than one percent of the estimated stock. Predicted levels of take were determined based on estimated density of sea otters in the project area and an ensonification zone developed using empirical evidence from a similar geographic area and corrected for the methodology proposed by NSF/L-DEO for this project. Based on these numbers, we propose a finding that the NSF/L-DEO project will take only a small number of animals.
We propose a finding that any incidental take by harassment resulting from the proposed project cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the sea otter through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival and will, therefore, have no more than a negligible impact on the Southeast Alaska stock of northern sea otters. In making this finding, we considered the best available scientific information, including: The biological and behavioral characteristics of the species, the most recent information on species distribution and abundance within the area of the specified activities, the current and expected future status of the stock (including existing and foreseeable human and natural stressors), the potential sources of disturbance caused by the project, and the potential responses of marine mammals to this disturbance. In addition, we reviewed applicant provided materials, information in our files and datasets, published reference materials, and species experts.
Sea otters are likely to respond to proposed activities with temporary behavioral modification or displacement. These reactions are unlikely to have consequences for the long-term health, reproduction, or survival of affected animals. Most animals will respond to disturbance by moving away from the source, which may cause temporary interruption of foraging, resting, or other natural behaviors. Affected animals are expected to resume normal behaviors soon after exposure with no lasting consequences. Twenty-one otters are estimated to be exposed to seismic noise for two days and thus, will have repeated exposure. However, permanent (
The total number of animals affected and severity of impact is not sufficient to change the current population dynamics at the stock scale. Although the specified activities may result in approximately 49 incidental takes of 27 otters from the Southeast Alaska stock, we do not expect this level of harassment to affect annual rates of recruitment or survival or result in adverse effects on the stock.
Our proposed finding of negligible impact applies to incidental take associated with the proposed activities as mitigated by the avoidance and minimization measures identified in NSF/L-DEO's mitigation and monitoring plan. These mitigation measures are designed to minimize interactions with and impacts to sea otters. These measures and the monitoring and reporting procedures are required for the validity of our finding and are a necessary component of the proposed IHA. For these reasons, we propose a finding that the 2021 NSF/L-DEO project will have a negligible impact on the Southeast Alaska stock of northern sea otters.
We propose a finding that NSF/L-DEO's anticipated harassment will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the Southeast Alaska stock of northern sea otters for taking for subsistence uses. In making this finding, we considered the timing and location of the proposed activities and the timing and location of subsistence harvest activities in the area of the proposed project. We also considered the applicant's consultation with subsistence communities, proposed measures for avoiding impacts to subsistence harvest, and commitment to development of a POC, should any concerns be identified.
Per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321,
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice as indicated above in
Under the ESA, all Federal agencies are required to ensure the actions they authorize are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The proposed activities will occur entirely within the range of the Southeast Alaska stock of the northern sea otter, which is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The measures included in the proposed IHA will not affect other listed species or designated critical habitat.
It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a Government-to-Government basis with federally recognized Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems. We are also required to consult with Alaska Native Corporations. We seek their full and meaningful participation in evaluating and addressing conservation concerns for protected species. It is our goal to remain sensitive to Alaska Native culture and to make information available to Alaska Natives. Our efforts are guided by the following policies and directives:
(1) The Native American Policy of the Service (January 20, 2016);
(2) the Alaska Native Relations Policy (currently in draft form);
(3) Executive Order 13175 (January 9, 2000);
(4) Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders 3206 (June 5, 1997), 3225 (January 19, 2001), 3317 (December 1, 2011), and 3342 (October 21, 2016); and
(5) the Department of the Interior's policies on consultation with Tribes and with Alaska Native Corporations.
We have evaluated possible effects of the proposed activities on federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes and organizations. Through the IHA process identified in the MMPA, the applicant has presented a communication process, culminating in a POC if needed, with the Native organizations and communities most likely to be affected by their work. NSF/L-DEO has engaged these groups in informational meetings. We invite continued discussion, either about the project and its impacts or about our coordination and information exchange throughout the IHA/POC process.
We propose to authorize up to 49 incidental takes of 27 Northern sea otters from the Southeast Alaska stock. We authorize take limited to disruption of behavioral patterns that may be caused by geophysical surveys and support activities conducted by NSF/L-DEO in Southeast Alaska, from July 1 to August 31, 2021. We anticipate no take by injury or death to northern sea otters resulting from these surveys.
1. The taking of Northern sea otters from the Southeast Alaska stock whenever the required conditions, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are not fully implemented as required by the IHA will be prohibited. Failure to follow measures specified may result in the suspension or revocation of the IHA.
2. If take exceeds the level or type identified in the proposed authorization (
3. All operations managers and vessel operators must receive a copy of the IHA and maintain access to it for reference at all times during project work. These personnel must understand, be fully aware of, and be capable of implementing the conditions of the IHA at all times during project work.
4. The IHA will apply to activities associated with the proposed project as described in this document and in NSF/L-DEO's amended application (LGL 2020). Changes to the proposed project without prior authorization may invalidate the IHA.
5. NSF/L-DEO's IHA application will be approved and fully incorporated into the IHA, unless exceptions are specifically noted herein or in the final IHA. The application includes:
• NSF/L-DEO's original request for an IHA, dated December 19, 2019;
• NSF/L-DEO's response to requests for additional information from the Service, dated January 22, February 19, and February 26, 2020; and
• A revised application, dated October 29, 2020.
6. Operators will allow Service personnel or the Service's designated representative to visit project work sites to monitor impacts to sea otters and subsistence uses of sea otters at any time throughout project activities so long as it is safe to do so. “Operators” are all personnel operating under the NSF/L-DEO's authority, including all contractors and subcontractors.
7. Seismic surveys must be conducted using equipment that generates the lowest practicable levels of underwater sound within the range of frequencies audible to sea otters.
8. Vessels will not approach within 100 m (328 ft) of individual sea otters or 500 m (0.3 mi) of rafts of otters. Operators will reduce vessel speed if a sea otter approaches or surfaces within 100 m (328 ft) of a vessel.
9. Vessels may not be operated in such a way as to separate members of a group of sea otters from other members of the group.
10. All vessels must avoid areas of active or anticipated subsistence hunting for sea otters as determined through community consultations.
11. Designated trained and qualified PSOs must be employed to monitor for the presence of sea otters, initiate mitigation measures, and monitor, record, and report the effects of the activities on sea otters. NSF/L-DEO is responsible for providing training to PSOs to carry out mitigation and monitoring.
12. NSF/L-DEO must establish mitigation zones for their 2D seismic
• Exclusion Zones (EZ) will be established with the following minimum radii: 500 m (0.3 mi) from the source for the full seismic array and 100 m (328 ft) for the single bolt airgun (655 cm
• A Safety Zone (SZ) is an area larger than the EZ and will include all areas within which sea otters may be exposed to noise levels that will likely result in Level B take.
• Both the EZ and SZ will be centered on the sound source (the seismic array).
• The radius of the SZs are shown in Table 3 (as calculated based on modeling techniques described herein and in Appendix A of NSF/L-DEO's application).
13. PSOs must conduct visual monitoring of the entire EZ and the visible SZ continuously during all seismic work occurring in daylight hours.
14. Prior to seismic work, a “ramp-up” procedure must be used to increase the levels of underwater sound at a gradual rate.
• A ramp-up will be used at the initial start of airgun operations and prior to restarting after any period greater than 30 minutes (min) without airgun operations, including a power-down or shutdown event.
• Visual monitoring must begin at least 30 min prior to and continue throughout ramp-up efforts.
• During geophysical work, the number and total volume of airguns will be increased incrementally until the full volume is achieved.
• The rate of ramp-up will be no more than 6 dB per 5-min period. Ramp-up will begin with the smallest gun in the array that is being used for all airgun array configurations. During the ramp-up, the applicable mitigation zones (based on type of airgun and sound levels produced) must be maintained.
• It will not be permissible to ramp-up the full array from a complete shutdown in thick fog or at other times when the outer part of the EZ is not visible.
• Ramp-up of the airguns will not be initiated if a sea otter is sighted within the EZ at any time.
• If sea otters are observed during a ramp-up effort or prior to startup, a PSO must record the observation and monitor the animal's position until it moves out of visual range. Seismic work may commence if, after a full and gradual effort to ramp up the underwater sound level, the sea otter is outside of the EZ and does not show signs of visible distress (for example, vocalizing, repeatedly spy-hopping, or fleeing).
15. The following actions must be taken in response to sea otters in mitigation zones:
• Seismic work will be shut down completely if a sea otter is observed within the 500-m (0.3-mi) EZ for the full array or the 100-m (328-ft) EZ for the 40-cui array.
• When sea otters are observed in visible distress (for example, vocalizing, repeatedly spy-hopping, or fleeing), seismic work must be immediately shut down or powered down to reduce noise exposure.
• The shutdown procedure will be accomplished within several seconds of the determination that a sea otter is in the applicable EZ or as soon as practicable considering worker safety and equipment integrity.
• Following a shutdown, seismic work will not resume until the sea otter has cleared the EZ. The animal will be considered to have cleared the EZ if it is visually observed to have left the EZ or has not been seen within the EZ for 30 minutes or longer.
• Any shutdown due to sea otters sighted within the EZ must be followed by a 30-minute all-clear period and then a standard full ramp-up.
• Any shutdown for other reasons resulting in the cessation of seismic work for a period greater than 30 minutes must also be followed by full ramp-up procedures.
16. Operators may reduce power to seismic equipment as an alternative to a shutdown to prevent a sea otter from entering the EZ. A power-down procedure involves reducing the volume of underwater sound generated. Vessel speed or course may be altered to achieve the same task.
• Whenever a sea otter is detected outside the EZ and, based on its position and motion relative to the seismic work, appears likely to enter the EZ but has not yet done so, the operator may power down to reduce high-level noise exposure.
• When a sea otter is detected in the SZ, an operator may choose to power down when practicable to reduce Level B take, but is not required to do so.
• During a power-down, the number of airguns in use will be reduced to a single mitigation airgun (airgun of small volume such as the 655-cm
• After a power-down, noise-generating work will not resume until the sea otter has cleared the EZ for the full airgun array. The animal will be
17. Visual monitoring must continue for 30 minutes after the use of the acoustic source ceases or the sun sets, whichever is later.
18. Operators shall work with PSOs to apply mitigation measures and shall recognize the authority of PSOs up to and including stopping work, except where doing so poses a significant safety risk to vessels and personnel.
19. Duties of PSOs include watching for and identifying sea otters, recording observation details, documenting presence in any applicable monitoring zone, identifying and documenting potential harassment, and working with vessel operators to implement all appropriate mitigation measures.
20. A sufficient number of PSOs will be onboard to meet the following criteria: 100 percent monitoring coverage during all daytime periods of seismic activity; a maximum of four consecutive hours on watch per PSO; a maximum of approximately 12 hours on watch per day per PSO; and at least one observer each on the source vessel and support vessel.
21. All PSOs will complete a training course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures. A field crew leader with prior experience as a marine mammal observer will supervise the PSO team. New or inexperienced PSOs will be paired with experienced PSOs so that the quality of marine mammal observations and data recording is kept consistent. Resumes for candidate PSOs will be made available for the Service to review.
22. Observers will be provided with reticule binoculars (10×42), big-eye binoculars or spotting scopes (30×), inclinometers, and range finders. Field guides, instructional handbooks, maps and a contact list will also be made available.
23. Prior to conducting the work, NSF/L-DEO will take the following steps to reduce potential effects on subsistence harvest of sea otters:
• Avoid work in areas of known sea otter subsistence harvest;
• Discuss the planned activities with subsistence stakeholders including Southeast Alaska villages and traditional councils;
• Identify and work to resolve concerns of stakeholders regarding the project's effects on subsistence hunting of sea otters; and
• If any concerns remain, develop a POC in consultation with the Service and subsistence stakeholders to address these concerns.
24. NSF/L-DEO must notify the Service at least 48 hours prior to commencement of activities.
25. Reports will be submitted to the Service's MMM weekly during project activities. The reports will summarize project work and monitoring efforts.
26. A final report will be submitted to the Service's MMM within 90 days after completion of work or expiration of the IHA. It will summarize all monitoring efforts and observations, describe all project activities, and discuss any additional work yet to be done. Factors influencing visibility and detectability of marine mammals (
27. Injured, dead, or distressed sea otters that are not associated with project activities (
28. All reports shall be submitted by email to
29. NSF/L-DEO must notify the Service upon project completion or end of the work season.
If you wish to comment on this proposed authorization, the applicability of NSF's draft EA to the proposed action, or the proposed adoption of NSF's EA, you may submit your comments by any of the methods described in
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will become part of the administrative record for this proposal. Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comments to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is publishing this notice to announce that a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) will take place.
The meeting will be held as a webinar on Tuesday, June 29, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on Wednesday, June 30, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time).
The meeting will be held on-line and via teleconference. Instructions for accessing the meeting will be posted at
Mr. John Mahoney, Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), USGS, 909 First Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98104; by email at
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552B, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Signed:
National Park Service, Interior.
Request for nominations.
The National Park Service is soliciting nominations for one member of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (Committee). The Secretary of the Interior will appoint one member from nominations submitted by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, or traditional Native American religious leaders. The nominee must be a traditional Indian religious leader.
Nominations must be received by August 9, 2021.
Please address nominations to Melanie O'Brien, Designated Federal Officer, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, via email
Melanie O'Brien, via telephone at (202) 354-2201.
The Committee was established by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) and is regulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The Review Committee is responsible for:
1. Monitoring the NAGPRA inventory and identification process.
2. Reviewing and making findings related to the identity or cultural affiliation of cultural items, or the return of such items.
3. Facilitating the resolution of disputes.
4. Compiling an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains and developing a process for disposition of such remains.
5. Consulting with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations and museums on matters within the scope of the work of the Review Committee affecting such tribes or organizations.
6. Consulting with the Secretary of the Interior in the development of regulations to carry out NAGPRA.
7. Making recommendations regarding future care of repatriated cultural items.
The Committee consists of seven members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary may not appoint Federal officers or employees to the Committee. Three members are appointed from nominations submitted by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and traditional Native American religious leaders. At least two of these members must be traditional Indian religious leaders. Three members are appointed from nominations submitted by national museum or scientific organizations. One member is appointed from a list of persons developed and consented to by all of the other members.
Members are appointed for 4-year terms and incumbent members may be reappointed for 2-year terms. The Committee's work is completed during public meetings. The Committee attempts to meet in person twice a year and meetings normally last two or three days. In addition, the Committee may also meet by public teleconference one or more times per year.
Members will be appointed as special Government employees (SGEs). Please be aware that members selected to serve as SGEs will be required, prior to appointment, to file a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report in order to avoid involvement in real or apparent conflicts of interest. You may find a copy of the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report at the following website:
Committee members serve without pay but are reimbursed for each day of meeting attendance. Committee members are also reimbursed for travel expenses incurred in association with Committee meetings (25 U.S.C. 3006(b)(4)). Additional information regarding the Committee, including the Committee's charter, meeting protocol, and dispute resolution procedures, is available on the National NAGPRA Program website, at
Nominations must:
1. If submitted by an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, be submitted on the official letterhead of the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
2. If submitted by an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, affirm that the signatory is the official authorized by the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization to submit the nomination.
3. If submitted by a Native American traditional religious leader, affirm that the signatory meets the definition of traditional Native American religious leader.
4. Provide the nominator's original signature, daytime telephone number, and email address.
5. Include the nominee's full legal name, home address, home telephone number, and email address.
Nominations should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable the Department of the Interior to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the Committee and permit the Department of the Interior to contact a potential member.
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2; 25 U.S.C. 3006.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping investigation Nos. 731-TA-1546-1549 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of thermal paper from Germany, Japan, Korea, and Spain, provided for in subheadings 4811.9080 and 4811.9090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold at less-than-fair-value.
May 12, 2021.
Ahdia Bavari ((202) 205-3191), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). We publish notice in the
NARA must receive comments by July 26, 2021.
You may submit comments by the following method. You must cite the control number, which appears on the records schedule in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule.
•
Due to COVID-19 building closures, we are currently temporarily not accepting comments by mail. However, if you are unable to comment via
Kimberly Keravuori, Regulatory and External Policy Program Manager, by email at
We are publishing notice of records schedules in which agencies propose to dispose of records they no longer need to conduct agency business. We invite public comments on these records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a), and list the schedules at the end of this notice by agency and subdivision requesting disposition authority.
In addition, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or states that the schedule has agency-wide applicability. It also provides the control number assigned to each schedule, which you will need if you submit comments on that schedule.
We have uploaded the records schedules and accompanying appraisal memoranda to the
We will post comments, including any personal information and attachments, to the public docket unchanged. Because comments are public, you are responsible for ensuring that you do not include any confidential or other information that you or a third party may not wish to be publicly posted. If you want to submit a comment with confidential information or cannot otherwise use the
We will consider all comments submitted by the posted deadline and consult as needed with the Federal agency seeking the disposition authority. After considering comments, we will post on
We will post schedules on our website in the Records Control Schedule (RCS) Repository, at
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives or to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking continuing administrative, legal, research, or other value. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist grants this approval only after thorough consideration of the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value. Public review and comment on these records schedules is part of the Archivist's consideration process.
1. Department of Health and Human Services, Program Support Center, Board for Correction Commissioned Corps Records (DAA-0468-2020-0001).
2. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Traffic Flow Management System (DAA-0237-2019-0002).
3. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Agency-wide, Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry Data (DAA-0587-2021-0001).
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice and request for comment.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the following extension of a currently approved collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments should be received on or before August 9, 2021 to be assured consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collection to Mackie Malaka, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Suite 6060, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Fax No. 703-519-8579; or email at
Address requests for additional information to Mackie Malaka at the address above or telephone 703-548-2704.
By Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on June 4, 2021.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit modification request received and permit issued.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities regulated and permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of a requested permit modification and permit issued.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8224; email:
The National Science Foundation (NSF), as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541, 45 CFR 671), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection.
NSF issued a permit (ACA 2020-004) to Leidos Innovations Corporation on November 8, 2019. The issued permit allows the permit holder to conduct waste management activities associated with the implementation of the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). The USAP Master Waste permit applies to all USAP activities, including major reconstruction and modernization efforts, conducted by all organizations supporting or supported by the Program. This includes the transport of both hazardous and non-hazardous waste from Antarctica to the United States. Under this permit, Leidos collects, stores, and ships both hazardous and non-hazardous waste materials and is responsible for the final disposition of these materials upon return to the United States.
Now the permit holder proposes a permit modification to revise and update several statements regarding the handling and disposition of hazardous wastes from Palmer Station and the research vessels as follows to more accurately reflect current and planned practices.
The Environmental Officer has reviewed the modification request and has determined that the amendment is not a material change to the permit, and it will have a less than a minor or transitory impact.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing NUREG-0090, Volume 43, “Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2020.” The report describes those events that the NRC or an Agreement State identified as abnormal occurrences (AOs) during fiscal year (FY) 2020, based on the criteria defined by the Commission. The report describes seven events at Agreement State-licensed facilities and two events at NRC-licensed facilities.
NUREG-0090, Volume 43, is available June 9, 2021.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0116 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
Minh-Thuy Nguyen, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5163, email:
Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. 93-438), defines an “abnormal occurrence” as an unscheduled incident or event that the NRC determines to be significant from the standpoint of public health or safety. The FY 2020 AO report, NUREG-0090, Volume 43, “Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2020” (ADAMS Accession No. ML21152A287), describes those events that the NRC identified as AOs during FY 2020.
This report describes seven events in Agreement States and two events involving NRC licensees that were identified as AOs during FY2020. Eight AOs were medical events as defined in part 35 of title 10 of the
The NRC identified four events during FY 2020 that met the guidelines for inclusion in Appendix B, “Other Events of Interest.” The first of these events was a human exposure event with possible internal contamination. The second event involved a gauge failure that resulted in unintended exposure to seven individuals, three of whom were classified as radiation workers who received occupational radiation exposure below regulatory limits. The third event was a stuck source event that resulted in an exposure above the regulatory annual limit to an individual involved in recovering the source. The fourth event concerned an extended loss of offsite power event at a commercial nuclear power plant. No events met the guidelines for inclusion in Appendix C, “Updates of Previously Reported Abnormal Occurrences.”
Agreement States are the 39 U.S. States that currently have entered into formal agreements with the NRC pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), to regulate certain quantities of AEA-licensed material at facilities located within their borders.
The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-68) requires that AOs be reported to Congress annually. The full report, NUREG-0090, Volume 43, “Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2020,” is also available electronically at the NRC's website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) License No. SNM-7005 to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), in Ft. Belvoir, Virginia to possess and use SNM for education, research, and training programs. The license authorizes DTRA to possess and use SNM for 10 years from the date of issuance.
License SNM-7005 was issued May 20, 2021.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0232 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Tyrone D. Naquin, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7352; email:
The DTRA is a combat support agency and a defense agency with a mission to counter the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives; counter the threats posed by the growing and evolving categories of improvised threats, including improvised explosive devices, car bombs and weaponized consumer drones, as well as the tactics, technologies and networks that put them on the battlefield; and to ensure that the U.S. military maintains a safe, secure, effective and credible nuclear weapons deterrent.
Pursuant to Section 2.106 of title 10 of the
The NRC previously published notice of DTRA's request for a materials license with a notice of opportunity to request a hearing in the
The NRC prepared a safety evaluation report for the issuance of License SNM-7005 and concluded that the licensee can operate the facility without endangering the health and safety of the public.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's “Rules of Practice,” the details with respect to this action, including the safety evaluation report and accompanying documentation and license, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS accession numbers as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend the Supplemental Inventory Schedule (“SIS”) pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS Information) so that members that are filers of FOCUS Report Part II will not be required to file the SIS. The proposed rule change does not make any other change to the SIS or the instructions thereto.
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.
FINRA Rule 4524 provides in part that, as a supplement to filing FOCUS Reports required pursuant to SEA Rule 17a-5
The Commission, as part of its rulemakings pursuant to Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”)
FINRA believes that Schedule 1—Aggregate Securities, Commodities, and Swaps Positions (“Schedule 1”) to FOCUS Report Part II, as amended, includes substantially all the information that is required by the SIS, including, among other things, information on the following types of positions:
• U.S. Treasury securities;
• U.S. government agency and U.S. government-sponsored enterprise securities;
• securities issued by states and political subdivisions in the U.S.;
• foreign securities;
• money market instruments;
• private label mortgage backed securities;
• other asset-backed securities;
• corporate obligations;
• stocks and warrants (other than arbitrage positions);
• arbitrage positions;
• spot commodities;
• other securities and commodities; and
• securities with no ready market.
Further, line 11 of the SIS requires specified information on “derivatives including options,” based on whether the positions are centrally cleared or not. On Schedule 1 this information will be reported based on whether the position is a cleared or non-cleared SBS, mixed swap or swap, or will be reported under the category “other derivatives and options.”
Given that substantially all the information required by the SIS is covered by Schedule 1 of FOCUS Report Part II, as amended, FINRA believes that it would be an unnecessary duplication of reporting to require members that file FOCUS Report Part II to continue to submit the SIS after the compliance date
The proposed rule change would not impact funding portal members because such members are not subject to Rule 4524 and are not subject to the FOCUS reporting requirements.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. FINRA is proposing that the implementation date of the proposed rule change will be October 31, 2021, for SIS filings that report on the month ending October 31, 2021, and are due by November 30, 2021. Thus, SISs filed on or after October 31, 2021, would reflect the proposed rule change.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA 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. Schedule 1 of FOCUS Report Part II, as amended, requires substantially all the information required by the SIS. Eliminating the SIS filing requirement for members that file FOCUS Report Part II, as amended, would avoid unnecessary duplication of reporting, thereby reducing burdens for such members, while ensuring that regulators continue to receive the needed information reflected on these forms.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to to [sic] list and trade shares of the following under NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E: Nuveen Santa Barbara Dividend Growth ETF, Nuveen Small Cap Select ETF, and Nuveen Winslow Large-Cap Growth ESG ETF. 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.
The Shares of the Funds will be issued by the Nushares ETF Trust (the “Trust”), which is organized as a business trust under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.
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 and Sub-Advisers are not registered as broker-dealers but are affiliated with broker-dealers. The Adviser and Sub-Advisers have implemented and will maintain a “fire wall” with respect to such broker-dealer affiliates regarding access to information concerning the composition of and/or changes to each Fund's Actual Portfolio and/or Proxy Portfolio.
In the event (a) the Adviser and/or Sub-Adviser(s) becomes registered as a broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer, or becomes affiliated with 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 each 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 each Fund's Actual Portfolio and/or Proxy Portfolio or changes thereto. Any person related to the Adviser, Sub-Adviser(s), or the Funds who makes decisions pertaining to a Fund's Actual Portfolio or the Proxy Portfolio or has access to non-public information regarding a Fund's Actual Portfolio and/or the Proxy Portfolio or changes thereto are subject to procedures reasonably designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding a Fund's Actual Portfolio and/or the Proxy Portfolio or changes thereto.
In addition, any person or entity, including any service provider for the Funds, who has access to non-public information regarding a 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 a 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 a Fund's Actual Portfolio and/or Proxy Portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, the Adviser will identify a Proxy Portfolio for each Fund, which is designed to closely track the daily performance of each Fund. Each Fund's Proxy Portfolio will be constructed to replicate the daily performance of the Fund's Actual Portfolio through a factor model analysis of the Fund's Actual Portfolio and will only include securities and investments in which the Funds may invest. However, while the Proxy Portfolio and the Actual Portfolio will likely hold some or many of the same securities, the Proxy Portfolio and a Fund's Actual Portfolio may not include identical securities. The composition of each Fund's Proxy Portfolio will be published on the Funds' website each Business Day
In addition to the Proxy Portfolio, the Funds' website will publish a variety of other information metrics regarding the relative behavior of the Proxy Portfolio and the Actual Portfolio, including daily disclosure of the “Proxy Overlap”
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 total return comprised of income from dividends and long-term capital appreciation. The Fund will normally invest at least 80% of the sum of its net assets in dividend-paying exchange-traded equity securities, which include common stocks and preferred securities. The Fund may invest in small-, mid-, and large-cap companies.
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 capital appreciation. The Fund will normally invest at least 80% of the sum of its net assets in exchange-traded common stocks of small-capitalization companies.
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 long-term capital appreciation. The Fund will primarily invest in exchange-traded equity securities of large-cap U.S. companies that exhibit ESG characteristics, as identified by the Sub-Adviser. The Fund will normally invest at least 80% of the sum of its net assets in exchange-traded equity securities of companies with large capitalizations at the time of purchase.
The Shares of the Funds will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under Rule 8.601-E. The Funds' 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 Funds' 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 Funds' investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
According to the Registration Statement, the Trust will issue and sell Shares of the Funds only in specified minimum size “Creation Units” through the Distributor on a continuous basis at their NAV next determined after receipt of an order in proper form on any Business Day. The NAV of each Fund's Shares will be calculated each Business Day as of the close of regular trading on the Exchange, ordinarily 3:00 p.m. E.T. A Creation Unit will generally consist of at least 10,000 Shares.
According to the Registration Statement, Shares of the Funds will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units. Creation Units are typically purchased and redeemed in-kind, but they may also be purchased and redeemed, in whole or in part, for cash in the Adviser's discretion. Accordingly, purchasers will generally be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (the “Deposit Securities”) and/or the cash value of the Deposit Securities (“Deposit Cash”), and shareholders redeeming their Shares will generally receive an in-kind transfer of Deposit Securities and/or Deposit Cash. The names and quantities of the instruments that constitute the Deposit Securities will be the same as a Fund's Proxy Portfolio, except to the extent purchases and redemptions are made entirely or in part on a cash basis.
Creation Units of the Funds may be purchased and/or redeemed entirely for cash in the Adviser's discretion. When full or partial cash purchases or redemptions of Creation Units are available or specified for the Funds, they will be effected in essentially the same manner as in-kind purchases or redemptions thereof. The Funds may determine, upon receiving a purchase or redemption order from an Authorized Participant, to have the purchase or redemption, as applicable, be made entirely or in part in cash.
If there is a difference between the NAV attributable to a Creation Unit and the aggregate market value of the Deposit Securities and/or Deposit Cash (together, the “Basket”), the party conveying instruments with the lower value will also pay to the other an amount in cash equal to that difference (the “Cash Component” or “Cash Redemption Component”).
Each Business Day, prior to the opening of trading on the Exchange, each Fund will publish the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Basket (
All orders to purchase or redeem Creation Units must be placed with the Distributor by or through an Authorized Participant. Orders to purchase or redeem Creation Units will be accepted until the “Cut-Off Time,” generally 3:00 p.m. E.T. The date on which an order to purchase or redeem Creation Units is received and accepted is referred to as the “Order Placement Date.” All Creation Unit orders must be received by the Distributor no later than the Cut-Off Time in order to receive the NAV determined on the Order Placement Date. When the Exchange closes earlier than normal, a Fund may require orders for Creation Units to be placed earlier in the Business Day.
The Funds' website (
(i) Ticker symbol;
(ii) CUSIP or other identifier;
(iii) Description of holding;
(iv) Quantity of each security or other asset held; and
(v) Percentage weighting of the holding in the portfolio.
The identity and quantity of investments in the Proxy Portfolio for each Fund will be publicly available on the Funds' website before the
Typical mutual fund-style annual, semi-annual and quarterly disclosures contained in the Funds' Commission filings will be provided on the Funds' website on a current basis.
Investors can also obtain the Funds' SAI, Shareholder Reports, Form N-CSR, N-PORT, and Form N-CEN. The prospectus, SAI, and Shareholder Reports are available free upon request, and those documents and the Form N-CSR, N-PORT, and Form N-CEN may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's website. The Exchange also notes that pursuant to the Application, the Funds must comply with Regulation Fair Disclosure, which prohibits selective disclosure of any material non-public information.
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. Quotation and last sale information for futures contracts will be available from the exchanges on which they trade. Intraday price information for all exchange-traded instruments, which include all eligible instruments except 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 a 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. 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 each 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 of each Fund will be calculated daily and that the NAV, Proxy Portfolio, and the Actual Portfolio for each 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.
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 underlying exchange-traded instruments from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain
The Adviser will make available daily to FINRA and the Exchange the Actual Portfolio of each 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 issuer 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 issuer of a series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares, 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 an issuer of Active Proxy Portfolio 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 issuers to represent that they 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 Funds, 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 Funds, that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Funds 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 a 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 Funds, 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.
The Funds' 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 in the Shares and underlying exchange-traded instruments from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and underlying 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 Funds 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 Shares' Bid/Ask Price and NAV.
The Funds' 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 Funds' investments will not be used to seek performance that is the multiple or inverse multiple (
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 that the NAV per Share of each Fund will be calculated daily and that the NAV, Proxy Portfolio, and Actual Portfolio for each Fund will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Investors can obtain the Funds' SAI, shareholder reports, and its Form N-CSR, Form N-PORT, and Form N-CEN. The Funds' SAI and shareholder reports will be available free upon request from the Funds, 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.
Commentary .03 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E provides that the Exchange will
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 issuer 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 Funds, a large amount of information will be publicly available regarding the Funds 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. Quotation and last sale information for futures contracts will be available from the exchanges on which they trade. Intraday price information for all exchange-traded instruments, which include all eligible instruments except 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 Funds 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 Funds 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 a Fund will 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 identity and quantity of investments in the Proxy Portfolio will be publicly available on the Funds' 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 Funds' 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 each 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 Adviser, prior to commencement of trading in the Shares of the Funds, that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Funds 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 Funds are 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, 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, investors will have ready access to information regarding 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 additional actively-managed ETFs that have 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
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.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 12f-3 (“Rule”), which was originally adopted in 1955 pursuant to Sections 12(f) and 23(a) of the Act, and as further modified in 1995, sets forth the requirements to submit an application to the Commission for termination or suspension of unlisted trading privileges in a security, as contemplated under Section 12(f)(4) of the Act. In addition to requiring that one copy of the application be filed with the Commission, the Rule requires that the application contain specified information. Under the Rule, an application to suspend or terminate unlisted trading privileges must provide, among other things, the name of the applicant; a brief statement of the applicant's interest in the question of termination or suspension of such unlisted trading privileges; the title of the security; the name of the issuer; certain information regarding the size of the class of security, the public trading volume and price history in the security for specified time periods on the subject exchange and a statement indicating that the applicant has provided a copy of such application to the exchange from which the suspension or termination of unlisted trading privileges are sought, and to any other exchange on which the security is listed or admitted to unlisted trading privileges.
The information required to be included in applications submitted pursuant to Rule 12f-3, is intended to provide the Commission with sufficient information to make the necessary findings under the Act to terminate or
The burden of complying with Rule 12f-3 arises when a potential respondent, having a demonstrable bona fide interest in the question of termination or suspension of the unlisted trading privileges of a security, determines to seek such termination or suspension. The staff estimates that each such application to terminate or suspend unlisted trading privileges requires approximately one hour to complete. Thus each potential respondent would incur on average one burden hour in complying with the Rule.
The Commission staff estimates that there could be as many as 18 responses annually for an aggregate burden for all respondents of 18 hours. Each respondent's related internal cost of compliance for Rule 12f-3 would be $221.00, or, the cost of one hour of professional work of a paralegal needed to complete the application. The total annual internal cost of compliance for all potential respondents, therefore, is $3,978.00 (18 responses × $221.00/response).
Compliance with the application requirements of Rule 12f-3 is mandatory, though the filing of such applications is undertaken voluntarily. Rule 12f-3 does not have a record retention requirement
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
On January 27, 1976, the Commission adopted Rule 11a1-1(T) to exempt certain exempt transactions of exchange members for their own accounts that would otherwise be prohibited under Section 11(a) of the Exchange Act. The Rule provides that a member's proprietary order may be executed on the exchange of which the trader is a member, if, among other things: (1) The member discloses that a bid or offer for its account is for its account to any member with whom such bid or offer is placed or to whom it is communicated; (2) any such member through whom that bid or offer is communicated discloses to others participating in effecting the order that it is for the account of a member; and (3) immediately before executing the order, a member (other than a specialist in such security) presenting any order for the account of a member on the exchange clearly announces or otherwise indicates to the specialist and to other members then present that he is presenting an order for the account of a member.
Without these requirements, it would not be possible for the Commission to monitor its mandate under the Exchange Act to promote fair and orderly markets and ensure that exchange members have, as the principle purpose of their exchange memberships, the conduct of a public securities business.
There are approximately 538 respondents that require an aggregate total of approximately 15 hours to comply with this Rule. Each of these approximately 538 respondents makes an estimated 20 annual responses, for an aggregate of 10,760 responses per year. Each response takes approximately 5 seconds to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is approximately 15 hours (10,760 × 5 seconds/60 seconds per minute/60 minutes per hour = 15 hours). The approximate internal cost of compliance per hour is $355, resulting in a total internal cost of compliance of approximately $5,325 per year (15 hours @$355).
Compliance with Rule 11a-1(T) is necessary for exchange members to make transactions for their own accounts under a specific exemption from the general prohibition of such transactions under Section 11(a) of the Exchange Act. Compliance with Rule 11a-1(T) does not involve the collection of confidential information. Rule 11a-1(T) does not have a record retention requirement per se. However, responses made pursuant to Rule 11a-1(T) may be subject to the recordkeeping requirements of Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
An investment company (“fund”) is generally limited in the amount of securities the fund (“acquiring fund”) can acquire from another fund (“acquired fund”). Section 12(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act” or “Act”)
• Acquire more than three percent of another fund's securities;
• invest more than five percent of its own assets in another fund; or
• invest more than ten percent of its own assets in other funds in the aggregate.
In addition, a registered open-end fund, its principal underwriter, and any registered broker or dealer cannot sell that fund's shares to another fund if, as a result:
• The acquiring fund (and any companies it controls) owns more than three percent of the acquired fund's stock; or
• all acquiring funds (and companies they control) in the aggregate own more than ten percent of the acquired fund's stock.
Rule 12d1-1 under the Act provides an exemption from these limitations for “cash sweep” arrangements in which a fund invests all or a portion of its available cash in a money market fund rather than directly in short-term instruments.
The rule also permits a registered fund to rely on the exemption to invest in an unregistered money market fund that limits its investments to those in which a registered money market fund may invest under rule 2a-7 under the Act, and undertakes to comply with all the other provisions of rule 2a-7.
Rule 2a-7 contains certain collection of information requirements. An unregistered money market fund that complies with rule 2a-7 would be subject to these collection of information requirements. In addition, the recordkeeping requirements under rule 31a-1 with which the acquiring fund reasonably believes the unregistered money market fund complies are collections of information for the unregistered money market fund. The adoption of procedures by unregistered money market funds to ensure that they comply with sections 17(a), (d), (e), 18, and 22(e) of the Act also constitute collections of information. By allowing funds to invest in registered and unregistered money market funds, rule 12d1-1 is intended to provide funds greater options for cash management. In order for a registered fund to rely on the exemption to invest in an unregistered money market fund, the unregistered money market fund must comply with certain collection of information requirements for registered money market funds. These requirements are intended to ensure that the unregistered money market fund has established procedures for collecting the information necessary to make adequate credit reviews of securities in its portfolio, as well as other recordkeeping requirements that will assist the acquiring fund in overseeing the unregistered money market fund (and Commission staff in its examination of the unregistered money market fund's adviser).
The number of unregistered money market funds that are affected by rule 12d1-1 is an estimate based on the number of private liquidity funds reported on Form PF as of the fourth calendar quarter 2019.
•
•
•
The estimated average burden hours in this collection of information are made solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a quantitative, comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the burdens associated with Commission rules and forms.
The estimated burden of information collection for rule 2a-7 is set forth in Table 1 below. We use these estimated burdens for registered money market funds to extrapolate the information collection burdens for unregistered money market funds under rule 12d1-1 in Table 2 below.
Based on the estimated burden of information collection for rule 2a-7 and Form PF filings, the estimated burden of information collection for rule 12d1-1 is set forth in Table 2 below.
Commission
However, the cost burdens shown in this chart have been updated. The cost burdens for professional personnel are based on SIFMA's
For purposes of the 2019 rule 2a-7 PRA extension, Form N-MFP data reflects that of the 30 new money market funds created between April of 2015 through September 2018, only six new money market funds elected to be retail funds—or approximately two per year ((6 funds/42 months) × 12 months). Based on these figures, we estimated that two new money market fund per year would elect to be a retail fund.
We use these estimated burdens for registered money market funds to extrapolate the information collection burdens for unregistered money market funds under rule 12d1-1 in this Table 2.
Consistent with estimates made in the rule 2a-7 submission, Commission staff estimates that unregistered money market funds also incur capital costs to create computer programs for maintaining and preserving compliance records for rule 2a-7 of $0.0000132 per dollar of assets under management. Based on the assets under management figures described above, staff estimates annual capital costs for all unregistered money market funds of $3.88 million.
Commission staff further estimates that, even absent the requirements of rule 2a-7, money market funds would spend at least half of the amounts described above for record preservation ($132,300) and for capital costs ($1.94 million). Commission staff concludes that the aggregate annual costs of compliance with the rule are $132,300 for record preservation and $1.94 million for capital costs.
The collections of information required for unregistered money market funds by rule 12d1-1 are necessary in order for acquiring funds to able to obtain the benefits described above. Notices to the Commission will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control OMB number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BX Options 7, Section 1, “General Provisions” and Section 2, “BX Options Market-Fees and Rebates.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of
The Exchange proposes to amend BX's Pricing Schedule at BX Options 7, Section 1, “General Provisions” and Section 2, “BX Options Market-Fees and Rebates.” Each change will be described below.
The Exchange proposes to relocate rule text, without change, related to the Removal of Days for Purposes of Pricing Tiers within Options 7, Section 2(6) into Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions. This proposed change is non-substantive. The Exchange believes that this rule text is more appropriate for Section 1 which describes general provisions.
The Exchange will begin offering its Block Order Mechanism
Also, the Exchange proposes to amend the rule text within Options 7, Section 2(1), which directs Participants to applicable pricing, to also provide that “Orders executed in the Block Order Mechanism and Customer Cross Orders are not subject to the pricing in Options 7, Section 2(1), instead, these orders are subject to the pricing within Options 7, Section 2(6).” The addition of this rule text will serve as a guidepost to Participants to easily locate the pricing for the Block Order Mechanism.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed changes to BX's Pricing Schedule are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, 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.”
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of sixteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange's proposal to relocate rule text related to the Removal of Days for Purposes of Pricing Tiers within Options 7, Section 2(6) into Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions, without change, is reasonable as the Exchange is simply relocating the rule text within a section which describes general provisions.
The Exchange's proposal to relocate rule text related to the Removal of Days for Purposes of Pricing Tiers within Options 7, Section 2(6) into Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions, without change, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the rule text will continue to apply uniformly to all Participants.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt Block Order Mechanism and Customer Cross Order pricing is reasonable. On June 1, 2021, the Exchange will begin offering the Block Order Mechanism and Customer Cross Orders to Participants and assess no fees and not pay any rebates for orders entered into the Block Order Mechanism or Customer Cross Orders. The Exchange's proposal will provide Participants notification of its Block Order and Customer Cross Order pricing. The proposal to add rule text within Options 7, Section 2(1) will serve as a guidepost to Participants to easily locate the pricing for the Block Order Mechanism and Customer Cross Orders.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt Block Order Mechanism and Customer Cross Order pricing is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as no Participant would be subject to any fees or be paid any rebates for orders executed into the Block Order Mechanism or Customer Cross Orders.
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 proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive with other options markets and will offer market participants with another choice of where to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other options exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The Exchange's proposal to relocate rule text related to the Removal of Days for Purposes of Pricing Tiers within Options 7, Section 2(6) into Options 7, Section 1, General Provisions, without change, does not impose an undue burden on competition as the rule text will continue to apply uniformly to all Participants.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt Block Order Mechanism and Customer Cross Order pricing does not impose an undue burden on competition as no Participant would be subject to any fees or be paid any rebates for orders executed into the Block Order Mechanism or Customer Cross Orders.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2021-025 and should be submitted on or before June 30, 2021.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 24, 2020, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
As further described below, FINRA proposes to (i) rescind FINRA's rules governing the OTC Bulletin Board Service (“OTCBB”) and cease its operation; and (ii) adopt new Rule 6439 (Requirements for Member Inter-Dealer Quotation Systems) to expand the obligations of member interdealer quotation systems (“IDQSs”)
The OTCBB is a FINRA-operated IDQS available for use by broker-dealers to publish quotations in eligible OTC Equity Securities.
FINRA states that it does not believe that continued operation of the OTCBB serves any benefit to investors or the marketplace and that ceasing operation of the OTCBB would eliminate potential investor confusion regarding the availability of quotation information for OTC Equity Securities.
As a result, FINRA proposes to rescind the FINRA Rule 6500 Series, which governs the operation of the OTCBB. Among other things, the FINRA Rule Series 6500 contains provisions regarding the securities eligible to be quoted on the OTCBB (FINRA Rule 6530), market maker obligations on the OTCBB (FINRA Rule 6540), and transaction reporting (FINRA Rule 6550). FINRA also proposes to rescind FINRA Rule 7720, which sets forth the fees applicable to a broker-dealer that displays quotations or trading interest in the OTCBB, and to amend FINRA Rule
FINRA states that all quotation activity in OTC Equity Securities now occurs on member-operated IDQSs, rather than the OTCBB.
Proposed Rule 6439 would apply to member IDQSs (whether or not such member is also an alternative trading system (“ATS”)) that permit quotation updates on a real-time basis in OTC Equity Securities. Under proposed Rule 6439(a), member IDQSs must establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures relating to the collection and dissemination of quotation information in OTC Equity Securities on or through their systems. Such written policies and procedures must be reasonably designed to ensure that quotations received and disseminated are informative, reliable, accurate, firm, and treated in a not unfairly discriminatory manner, including by establishing non-discretionary standards under which quotations are prioritized and displayed.
Under proposed Rule 6439(b), member IDQSs must establish non-discriminatory written standards for granting access to quoting and trading in OTC Equity Securities on their systems that do not unreasonably prohibit or limit any person with respect to access to services offered by such member IDQS.
Proposed Rules 6439(c) and (d) would apply only to member IDQSs that do not automatically execute all orders presented for execution against displayed quotations for which a member subscriber has an obligation under FINRA Rule 5220 (Offers at Stated Prices)
Under proposed Rule 6439(d), non-auto-executing member IDQSs must report to FINRA, in a form and manner prescribed by FINRA,
Proposed Rule 6439(d)(1)(B) would require non-auto-executing member IDQSs to provide to FINRA the following order-level information for each order presented against an MPID's quotation during the previous calendar month: (i) Buy/sell; (ii) security symbol; (iii) price; (iv) size; (v) All or None indicator (yes or no); (vi) order entry firm MPID; (vii) order receipt time; (viii) time in force; (ix) response time; (x) order response (
Proposed Rule 6439(e) would require each member IDQS to make available to customers on its website (or its affiliate distributor's website) a written description of each OTC Equity Security order- or quotation-related data product offered by such member IDQS and related pricing information, including fees, rebates, discounts and cross-product pricing incentives. Member IDQSs would be required to keep the relevant website page(s) accurate and up-to-date with respect to the required data product descriptions and pricing information and to make such information available at least two business days in advance of offering a data product.
Finally, under proposed Rule 6439(f), a member IDQS must provide FINRA with prompt notification when it reasonably becomes aware of any systems disruption that is not de minimis that degrades, limits, or otherwise impacts the member IDQS's functionality with respect to trading or the dissemination of market data.
FINRA states that, if the proposed rule change is approved by the Commission, FINRA will announce in a
After carefully reviewing the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.2, the comment letters, and the FINRA letters, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
As noted by FINRA, the OTCBB currently does not display or widely disseminate quotation information on any OTC Equity Securities, and all quotation activity in OTC Equity Securities occurs on member IDQSs.
The Commission believes that the continued operation of the OTCBB, which FINRA represents is essentially defunct, provides no current benefit to the market and could cause investor confusion with respect to the availability of quotations in OTC Equity Securities. The Commission recently estimated
The Commission finds that the proposed requirements set forth in Rule 6439 relating to member IDQSs that permit quotation updates on a real-time basis in OTC Equity Securities are consistent with the Exchange Act.
First, the Commission finds that proposed Rule 6439(a), which would require member IDQSs to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures relating to the collection and dissemination of quotation information in OTC Equity Securities on or through their systems, is consistent with Section 15A(b)(11) of the Act, which requires FINRA rules relating to quotations for securities sold other than on a national securities exchange to be designed to produce fair and informative quotations, to prevent fictitious or misleading quotations, and to promote orderly procedures for collecting, distributing, and publishing quotations. The Commission believes that proposed Rule 6439(a) is designed to promote orderly procedures for collecting, distributing, and publishing quotations in OTC Equity Securities because the proposed requirements would apply to all member IDQSs that permit quotation updates on a real-time
Second, the Commission finds that proposed Rule 6439(b), which would require a member IDQS to establish non-discriminatory written standards for granting access to quoting and trading in OTC Equity Securities on its system that do not unreasonably prohibit or limit any person in respect to access to services offered by such member IDQS, is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which requires that FINRA's rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed requirements relating to fair access are designed to afford fair and non-discriminatory access for all market participants to the quotation systems of all member IDQSs that provide real-time quotations in OTC Equity Securities. Given the significant role that member IDQSs serve in the marketplace for quotations in OTC Equity Securities, the Commission believes that these requirements should improve access to quotations for these securities, which should help to ensure that investors have the pricing information necessary to make informed investment decisions with respect to OTC Equity Securities. As a result, the Commission finds that the requirements of proposed Rule 6439(b) are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act.
One commenter suggested that member IDQSs that are subject to the fair access requirements under Regulation ATS should be exempt from the fair access requirements of proposed Rule 6439(b) because such requirements are duplicative.
As discussed, the Commission believes that the requirements relating to fair access for member IDQSs, as set forth in proposed Rule 6439(b), are consistent with the Exchange Act. The fair access requirements set forth in Rule 301(b)(5) of Regulation ATS,
Third, proposed Rules 6439(c) and (d) would require non-auto-executing member IDQSs to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address instances of unresponsiveness when orders are presented to trade with firm quotations displayed in OTC Equity Securities, and to report on a monthly basis certain aggregate and order-level information to FINRA. FINRA states that such requirements are designed to enhance compliance with the firm quote requirements for non-auto-executing member IDQSs as set forth in FINRA Rule 5220.
The Commission agrees that unresponsiveness by those who display quotations in the OTC Equity Securities market can be harmful to the market and investors in OTC Equity Securities. The principle that a displayed quotation should be “firm” is well established in the securities markets.
Two commenters suggested that FINRA revise proposed Rule 6439(d) to exempt member-IDQSs that would have reporting obligations under proposed paragraph (d)
The Commission finds that FINRA's proposal to exempt non-auto-executing member IDQSs from reporting order-level information pursuant to proposed Rule 6439(d)(1)(B) to the extent such information becomes reportable to CAT is reasonable and is designed to effectively reduce reporting redundancies. If the information required to be reported pursuant to Rule 6439(d)(1)(B) is already reportable, or becomes reportable, to the CAT pursuant to FINRA Rule 6830, it will be available to FINRA through the CAT, so separate reporting pursuant to proposed FINRA Rule 6439(d)(1)(B) would be duplicative. As a result, the Commission finds the proposed exemption is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade.
These two commenters also requested that FINRA provide additional guidance with respect to proposed Rule 6439(c)(3) and (4), which would require non-auto-executing member IDQSs to maintain policies and procedures that specify an efficient process for documenting a subscriber's rationale for unresponsiveness and for determining specified steps when an instance of repeated order unresponsiveness may have occurred.
In response, one commenter raised concerns regarding the requirements of proposed Rule 6439(c)(2) and (c)(3), which would require non-auto-
In response, FINRA stated that it is cognizant that IDQSs, including the commenter, lack access to certain information and lack regulatory authority and that it would not expect a member IDQS to gather extraneous information or resolve disputes (beyond steps that may be taken pursuant to proposed Rule 6439(c)(4)).
The Commission has considered commenters' request for guidance and modifications to the proposed requirements and FINRA's responses and believes FINRA's responses support the finding that the proposed Rule 6439(c) is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act. As previously noted, a system that permits manual responses to orders received against displayed quotations can result in order unresponsiveness. The Commission agrees with FINRA that requiring such systems to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address instances of unresponsiveness, which includes requiring such systems to maintain policies and procedures that specify an efficient process for subscribers submitting to the member IDQS complaints regarding potential instances of order unresponsiveness and documenting the subscriber's rationale for unresponsiveness, should help ensure that market participants can reasonably rely on the displayed quotations on member IDQSs that do not auto-execute orders and help FINRA surveil for unresponsiveness on such systems.
Further, the Commission finds that proposed Rule 6439(e), which will require member IDQSs to publish and keep updated information about order- or quotation-related data products, is consistent with both Exchange Act Section 15A(b)(6)'s requirement that FINRA's rules be designed to protect investors and the public interest and Exchange Act Section 15A(b)(11)'s requirement that FINRA's rules contain provisions governing the form and content of quotations relating to securities sold otherwise than on a national securities exchange which may be distributed or published by any member or person associated with a member, and the persons to whom such quotations may be supplied. The publication of such information will provide FINRA with useful information to ensure compliance with FINRA rules and to monitor the widespread availability of OTC Equity Securities' quotation information to investors and to market participants through non-SRO sources. In addition, market participants will benefit from a better understanding of such data products when assessing a particular member IDQS as a potential trading venue.
Finally, the Commission finds that proposed Rule 6439(f), which would require a member IDQS to provide FINRA with prompt notification when it reasonably becomes aware of any systems disruption that is not de minimis that degrades, limits, or otherwise impacts the member IDQS's functionality with respect to trading or the dissemination of market data, is consistent with Exchange Act Section 15A(b)(6)'s requirement that FINRA's rules be designed to protect investors and the public interest and Section 15A(b)(11)'s requirement that FINRA's rules relating to quotations be designed to promote orderly procedures for collecting, distributing, and publishing quotations. The Commission believes that the uninterrupted operation of member IDQSs is vital to investor confidence in the OTC securities market structure and furthers the goals of Section 17B of the Act.
FINRA has committed to examining member IDQSs for compliance with proposed Rule 6439 and has represented that it will conduct a targeted exam of impacted member IDQSs after the initial effectiveness of the rule and will incorporate a proposed Rule 6439 review as part of the regular exam program for impacted member firms.
The Commission notes that, despite certain suggested modifications to the proposed rule, all three commenters supported FINRA's proposal to enhance regulatory requirements for IDQSs.
Finally, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change to rescind the rules related to the OTCBB and cease its operation and adopt proposed Rule 6439 to expand the obligations of member IDQSs that display quotations in OTC Equity Securities is consistent with Section 17B of the Act.
Based on how the OTC market has evolved since the adoption of Section 17B,
FINRA has represented that, in advance of the discontinuance of the OTCBB, FINRA will take steps to ensure a smooth transition for issuers and members.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the
Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
State Justice Institute.
Notice of meeting.
The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, June 21, 2021 at 2 p.m. ET. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 3rd quarter of FY 2021, and other business.
Jonathan Mattiello, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340, Fairfax, VA 22033, 703-660-4979,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 13 individuals for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Comments must be received on or before July 9, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0007 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0007), 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 13 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in § 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 at 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 standard red, green, and amber.
On July 16, 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to meet (57 FR 31458). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing exemptions made by § 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of § 391.41(b)(10).
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely in intrastate commerce with the vision deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
Mr. Adler, 29, has corneal scarring in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2020, his optometrist stated, “It is my professional opinion that Mr. Adler has sufficient vision to perform the tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Adler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating 648,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 144,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from New Hampshire. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Beckett, 51, has a macular scar in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2020 his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, due to his fully functioning peripheral visual field and 20/20 best corrected vision in left eye and both eyes together, Mr. Beckett has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Beckett reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 24,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 6 years, accumulating 450,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Boyett, 52, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, “He has stable and he has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle safely at this time with no restrictions, in my medical opinion.” Mr. Boyett reported that he has driven straight trucks for 18 years,
Mr. Ford, 41, has a retinal detachment in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1996. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2021, his ophthalmologist stated, “Yes. Patient has the ability to operate a commercial vehicle based off his visual potential.” Mr. Ford reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 37,500 miles, and buses for 4 years, accumulating 20,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from South Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Fox, 37, has a prosthetic left eye due to an infection in 1991. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2021, his ophthalmologist stated, “I believe that Mr. Fox has sufficient vision to perform the tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Fox reported that he has driven straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating 450,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 360,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. George, 59, has a cataract in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, blindness. Following an examination in 2020, his optometrist stated, “James George's vision is sufficient to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. George reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 180,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 37 years, accumulating 2,516,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes but one conviction for speeding in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 10 miles per hour.
Mr. Kruprzak, 55, has corneal and retinal scarring in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2020, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Kruprzak has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Kruprzak reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 150,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 1,650,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Lawson, 55, has corneal scarring in his left eye due to an infection in 2015. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Lawson has sufficient vision to perform the driving task required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Lawson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 260,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 52,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Lindgren, 25, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, “That is, in my opinion Alec has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Lindgren reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 36,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating 250,000 miles, and buses for 1 year, accumulating 5,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. McCleary, 47, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2020, his optometrist stated, “I do believe Mr. McCleary has sufficient vision to perform the essential tasks of driving a commercial vehicle and am recommending renewal of his federal vision waiver.” Mr. McCleary reported that he has driven straight trucks for 1 year, accumulating 93,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 480,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes but one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he failed to obey a traffic control device.
Mr. Parker II, 30, has retinal scaring in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1995. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2020, his optometrist stated, “I believe that Richard Parker has sufficient vision to safely drive and operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Parker reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 187,998 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 6 years, accumulating 94,002 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Sundvor, 59, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye since 2017. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, Mr. Sundvor has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle safely.” Mr. Sundvor reported that he has driven straight trucks for 45 years, accumulating 225,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 1,500,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from North Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Tessman, 78, has had a retinal deformity in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/45, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Tessman has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Tessman reported that he has driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 1,265,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 33 years, accumulating 5,775,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material received before the close of business on the closing date indicated 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 11 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
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 9, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0355, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0203, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0115, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0323, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0313, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0315, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0056, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0057, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0027, or Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0029 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0355, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0203, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0115, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0323, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0313, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0315, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0056, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0057, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0027, or Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0029), 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 epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), 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 11 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 11 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System and the Motor Carrier Management Information System are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of June and are discussed below. As of June 10, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 10 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2008-0355, FMCSA-2010-0203, FMCSA-2015-0115, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0313, FMCSA-2016-0315, FMCSA-2018-0056, FMCSA-2018-0057, or FMCSA-2019-0027. Their exemptions are applicable as of June 10, 2021, and will expire on June 10, 2023.
As of June 18, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), Alan Finlayson (AL) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2019-0029. The exemption is applicable as of June 18, 2021, and will expire on June 18, 2023.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the 2-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified ME, as defined by § 390.5; and (4) 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 file if he/she 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 on its evaluation of the 11 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 11 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on April 30, 2021. The exemptions expire on April 30, 2023.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
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
On April 22, 2021, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 11 individuals from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (86 FR 21431). The public comment period ended on May 24, 2021, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with § 391.41(b)(8).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in § 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based on its evaluation of the 11 renewal exemption applications, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8).
As of April 30, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (86 FR 21431):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0379, FMCSA-2014-0382, FMCSA-2016-0008, FMCSA-2016-0011, FMCSA-2016-0313, FMCSA-2018-0054, and FMCSA-2018-0057. Their exemptions were applicable as of April 30, 2021, and will expire on April 30, 2023.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (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 prior to being 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).
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that are subject to the prohibitions under Executive Order 13959, as amended by Executive Order of June 3, 2021, “Addressing the Threat from Securities Investments That Finance Certain Companies of the People's Republic of China” (“E.O. 13959” or the “Order”), and have been placed on OFAC's Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List (NS-CMIC List). Any purchase or sale of any publicly traded securities, or any publicly traded securities that are derivative of such securities or are designed to provide investment exposure to such securities, of any of these persons, by any United States person in violation of the Order is prohibited.
See
OFAC: Bradley T. Smith, Acting Director, tel.: 202-622-2480; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The NS-CMIC List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On June 3, 2021, the President determined that the persons listed in the Annex to E.O. 13959, as amended, are subject to the prohibitions set forth in E.O. 13959, as amended. Accordingly, OFAC is placing the following persons on its NS-CMIC List.
1. AERO ENGINE CORPORATION OF CHINA (a.k.a. AERO ENGINE CORP OF CHINA; a.k.a. CHINA AVIATION ENGINE GROUP CO., LTD; a.k.a. “AECC”), 5 Landianchang South Road Haidian District, Beijing 100097, China; Target Type State-Owned Enterprise; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000MA005UCQ5P (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PE.O.ple's Republic of China (PRC).
2. AEROSPACE CH UAV CO., LTD (f.k.a. ZHEJIANG NANYANG TECHNOLOGY COMPANY LIMITED), Development Zone, 388, Kai Fa Avenue, Taizhou 318000, China; Equity Ticker 002389 CN; Issuer Name Aerospace CH UAV Co Ltd; ISIN CNE100000N20; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91330000734507783B (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
3. AEROSPACE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS GROUP COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. AEROCOM; a.k.a. AEROSPACE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS CO., LTD.; f.k.a. AEROSPACE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED), Block 1, Aerospace Communications Mansion, 138, Jiefang Road, Hangzhou 310009, China; Equity Ticker 600677 CN; Issuer Name Aerospace Communications Holdings Co., Ltd.; ISIN CNE000000BS6; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 913300001429112055 (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
4. AEROSUN CORPORATION (a.k.a. AEROSUN; a.k.a. AEROSUN CORP.), Jiangning Economic Zone, 188, Tianyuan Zhong Road, Nanjing 211100, China; Equity Ticker 600501 CN; Issuer Name Aerosun Corporation; ISIN CNE000001857; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91320000714091899R (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
5. ANHUI GREATWALL MILITARY INDUSTRY COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. ANHUI GREAT WALL MILITARY INDUSTRY CO., LTD; a.k.a. ANHUI GREATWALL MILITARY INDUSTRY CO., LTD.; a.k.a. GREATWALL MILITARY; a.k.a. GREATWALL MILITARY INDUSTRY), No. 99 Taoyuan Road, Economic Development Zone, Hefei, China; Economic And Technological Development Zone, 99 Hezhang Road, Hefei 230001, China; Equity Ticker 601606 CN; Issuer Name Anhui Greatwall Military Industry Co., Ltd; ISIN CNE1000036L1; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 9134000070503581XA (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
6. AVIATION INDUSTRY CORPORATION OF CHINA, LTD. (a.k.a. AVIATION INDUSTRY CORP OF CHINA; a.k.a. AVIATION INDUSTRY OF CHINA; a.k.a. “AVIC”), Building 19 Compound A5 Shuguang Xili Chaoyang District, Beijing 100028, China; Issuer Name Aviation Industry Corporation of China, Ltd; ISIN CND10001WLS0; alt. ISIN CND10002HNP1; alt. ISIN CND10002DPC3; Target Type State-Owned Enterprise; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000710935732K (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
7. AVIC AVIATION HIGH-TECHNOLOGY COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. AVIC AVIATION HIGH-TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; a.k.a. AVIC HI-TECH; f.k.a. TONTEC TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT GROUP COMPANY LIMITED), 1, Yonghe Road, Gangzha District, Nantong 226011, China; Equity Ticker 600862 CN; Issuer Name Tonmac International Co., Ltd.; ISIN CNE000000GZ0; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91320600138299578A (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
8. AVIC HEAVY MACHINERY COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. AVIC HEAVY MACHINERY CO., LTD.; f.k.a. GUIZHOU LIYUAN HYDRAULIC CO., LTD.; f.k.a. GUIZHOU LIYUAN HYDRAULIC COMPONENTS CO., LTD.), No. 501, Beiya Road, Wudang District, Guiyang, Guizhou, China; Equity Ticker 600765 CN; Issuer Name Guizhou Liyuan Hydraulic Components Co., Ltd.; ISIN CNE000000N22; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91520000214434146R (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
9. AVIC JONHON OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (a.k.a. JONHON), No. 10, Zhoushan Rd., Luoyang Area, Pilot Free Trade Zone, Luoyang, Henan, China; Equity Ticker 002179 CN; Issuer Name AVIC Jonhon Optronic Technology Co., Ltd.; ISIN CND10003VVT5; alt. ISIN CNE1000007T5; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 914100007457748527 (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
10. AVIC SHENYANG AIRCRAFT COMPANY LIMITED (f.k.a. DONGAN
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
11. AVIC XI'AN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY GROUP COMPANY LTD. (a.k.a. AVIC AIRCRAFT CO., LTD.; a.k.a. AVIC XIAN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY GROUP CO LTD; a.k.a. XI'AN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL CORP.; a.k.a. XI'AN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY GROUP CO LTD), No. 1, Xifei Avenue, Yanliang District, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China; Equity Ticker 000768 CN; Issuer Name AVIC Aircraft Co., Ltd.; ISIN CNE000000RF9; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 916100002942059830 (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
12. CHANGSHA JINGJIA MICROELECTRONICS COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. CHANGSHA JINGJIA MICROELECTRONICS CO., LTD; a.k.a. JINGJIA MICRO), No.1, Meixihu Road, Yuelu District, Changsha 410205, China; Equity Ticker 300474 CN; Issuer Name Changsha Jingjia Microelectronics Co., Ltd.; alt. Issuer Name Changsha Jingjia Microelectronics Company Limited; ISIN CNE100002664; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 914301007853917172 (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
13. CHINA ACADEMY OF LAUNCH VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY (a.k.a. “CALT”), 1 Nandahongmen Road Fengtai District, Beijing 100076, China; No. 1, South Dahongmen Road, Fengtai District, Beijing 100076, China; Target Type State-Owned Enterprise; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Business Registration Number 100000108000042 (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
14. CHINA AEROSPACE SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY CORPORATION LIMITED (a.k.a. CASIC; a.k.a. CHINA AEROSPACE SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY CORPORATION), No. 8, Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100089, China; Issuer Name China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation Limited; ISIN CND1000142N4; Target Type State-Owned Enterprise; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000710925243K (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
15. CHINA AEROSPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION (a.k.a. “CASC”), No. 8, Fucheng Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100048, China; Issuer Name China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation; ISIN CND1000090Q8; alt. ISIN CND100006HP7; Target Type State-Owned Enterprise; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000100014071Q (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
16. CHINA AEROSPACE TIMES ELECTRONICS CO., LTD (f.k.a. LONG MARCH LAUNCH VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY COMPANY LIMITED; a.k.a. “CATEC”), High-Technology Industrial Zone, Economic & Technological Development Zone, Wuhan 430056, China; Equity Ticker 600879 CN; Issuer Name China Aerospace Times Electronics Co., Ltd; ISIN CNE000000J93; alt. ISIN CND10003B821; alt. ISIN CND100034J27; alt. ISIN CND100037514; alt. ISIN CND100032457; alt. ISIN CND10002R795; alt. ISIN CND10003D843; alt. ISIN CND100035G37; alt. ISIN CND100037S23; alt. ISIN CND10002B3Q3; alt. ISIN CND10002T6Q6; alt. ISIN CND100044B23; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91420100177716821Q (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
17. CHINA AVIONICS SYSTEMS COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. AVIC AVIONICS; f.k.a. CHINA AVIC ELECTRONICS CO., LTD; f.k.a. CHINA AVIC ELECTRONICS COMPANY LIMITED; a.k.a. CHINA AVIONICS SYSTEMS CO., LTD), Building 20, 8th-9th Floor, 5A, Shuguangxili, Beijing 100028, China; Equity Ticker 600372 CN; Issuer Name China Avionics Systems Company Limited; ISIN CNE0000018C0; alt. ISIN CND100018CL2; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000705514765U (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
18. CHINA COMMUNICATIONS CONSTRUCTION GROUP (LIMITED) (a.k.a. CHINA COMMUNICATIONS CONSTRUCTION GROUP (LTD); a.k.a. CHINA COMMUNICATIONS GROUP CO. LTD; a.k.a. CHINA COMMUNICATIONS GROUP COMPANY LIMITED; a.k.a. “CCCG”), No. 85, Deshengmen Outer Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100088, China; Issuer Name China Communications Group Co. Ltd; alt. Issuer Name China Communications Construction Group (Ltd.); alt. Issuer Name China Communications Group Company Limited; ISIN CND10003RDS3; alt. ISIN CND100041XX5; alt. ISIN CND1000455C3; alt. ISIN CND100041XW7; alt. ISIN CND1000455B5; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000710933809D (China) [CMIC-EO] (Linked To: CHINA COMMUNICATIONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED).
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for owning or controlling, directly or indirectly, CHINA COMMUNICATIONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED, a person who operates or has operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC and who has been identified pursuant to E.O. 13959, as amended.
19. CHINA COMMUNICATIONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. CHINA COMMUNICATIONS CONSTR CO LTD; a.k.a. CHINA COMMUNICATIONS CONSTRUCTION CO LTD; a.k.a. CHINA COMMUNICATIONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD; a.k.a. “CCCC”), 85, Deshengmen Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100088, China; Equity Ticker 601800 CN; alt. Equity Ticker 01800 HK; alt. Equity Ticker CYY DE; Issuer Name China Communications Construction Co. Ltd; alt. Issuer Name China Communications Construction Company Limited; alt. Issuer Name China Communications Construction Company Ltd; alt. Issuer Name China Communications Constr Co Ltd; ISIN CND10000GBD8; alt. ISIN CND10001TD67; alt. ISIN CND10002GB63; alt. ISIN CND10001TD75; alt. ISIN US1689261030; alt. ISIN CND10002G6P3; alt. ISIN CND10003TZ93; alt. ISIN CND100017CS9; alt. ISIN CND10001TD59; alt. ISIN CND10002K094; alt. ISIN CND10002H1Z2; alt. ISIN CND10003R421; alt. ISIN CND10002KKV9; alt. ISIN CND10002DZZ3; alt. ISIN CND10003KT58; alt. ISIN CND100043Z00; alt. ISIN CNE1000002F5; alt. ISIN CND10002G601; alt. ISIN CND10002GB71; alt. ISIN CNE100001FN5; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000710934369E (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
20. CHINA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION (a.k.a. “CEC”), 19F, Building 1, No. 66A, Zhongguancun East Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100190, China;
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for owning or controlling, directly or indirectly, NANJING PANDA ELECTRONICS COMPANY LIMITED, a person who operates or has operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC and who has been identified pursuant to E.O. 13959, as amended.
21. CHINA ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY GROUP CORPORATION (a.k.a. “CETC”), No. 27, Wanshou Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100846, China; Target Type State-Owned Enterprise; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000710929498G (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
22. CHINA GENERAL NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (a.k.a. CHINA GENERAL NUCLEAR POWER CORP; a.k.a. “CGN”), 33F, South Building, China General Nuclear Building, No. 2002 Shennan Avenue, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China; Issuer Name China General Nuclear Power Corporation; ISIN CND10003XXN0; alt. ISIN CND1000248C2; alt. ISIN CND10003GZY7; alt. ISIN CND1000363K2; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 9144030010001694XX (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
23. CHINA MARINE INFORMATION ELECTRONICS COMPANY LIMITED (f.k.a. CEC CORECAST CORPORATION LIMITED; a.k.a. CHINA MARINE INFORMATION ELECTRONICS CO LTD; f.k.a. CHINA SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY GROUP MARINE DEFENSE AND INFORMATION CONFRONTATION CO., LTD.), 4F Zhongshangxin Mansion 34 Xueyuan South Road, Beijing 100082, China; Equity Ticker 600764 CN; Issuer Name China Marine Information Electronics Company Limited; ISIN CNE000000N30; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000224344507P (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
24. CHINA MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP CO., LTD. (a.k.a. CHINA MOBILE), No. 29, Financial Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100032, China; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 911100007109250324 (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
25. CHINA MOBILE LIMITED (a.k.a. CHINA MOBILE LTD), 60th Floor, The Center, 99 Queens Road Central, Hong Kong, China; Equity Ticker CHL US; alt. Equity Ticker 941 HK; alt. Equity Ticker CHL RU; alt. Equity Ticker CTMA DE; alt. Equity Ticker K3PD SG; alt. Equity Ticker CTM DE; alt. Equity Ticker C1HL34 BR; alt. Equity Ticker CHL AR; Issuer Name China Mobile Limited; alt. Issuer Name China Mobile Ltd; ISIN US16941M1099; alt. ISIN HK0941009539; alt. ISIN BRC1HLBDR003; alt. ISIN ARDEUT111812; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021 [CMIC-EO] (Linked To: CHINA MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP CO., LTD.).
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, CHINA MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP CO., LTD., a person who operates or has operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC and who has been identified pursuant to E.O. 13959, as amended.
26. CHINA NATIONAL NUCLEAR CORPORATION (a.k.a. CHINA NATIONAL NUCLEAR CORP; a.k.a. “CNNC”), No. 1, Nansan Lane, Sanlihe, Xicheng District, Beijing 100822, China; Issuer Name China National Nuclear Corporation; ISIN CND10000KRQ8; alt. ISIN CND100005B38; alt. ISIN CND10002J9T6; alt. ISIN CND100027TJ1; alt. ISIN CND10002DLF5; alt. ISIN CND10003RXC5; alt. ISIN CND10002J9V2; alt. ISIN CND100005B20; alt. ISIN CND100025BB0; alt. ISIN CND10003VCD9; alt. ISIN CND10003RXB7; alt. ISIN CND10001ZPR6; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000100009563N (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
27. CHINA NATIONAL OFFSHORE OIL CORPORATION (a.k.a. CHINA NATIONAL OFFSHORE OIL CORP.; a.k.a. CNOOC), No. 25, Chaoyangmen North Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100010, China; Target Type State-Owned Enterprise; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Legal Entity Number 300300AY5BEBCYDR2F31; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000100001043E (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
28. CHINA NORTH INDUSTRIES GROUP CORPORATION LIMITED (a.k.a. CHINA NORTH INDUSTRIES GROUP CO. LTD; a.k.a. CHINA NORTH INDUSTRIES GROUP CORPORATION; a.k.a. NORINCO; a.k.a. NORINCO GROUP; a.k.a. “CNIGC”), No. 46, Sanlihe Road, Xicheng District, Beijing 100821, China; Issuer Name China North Industries Group Corporation Limited; alt. Issuer Name China North Industries Group Co. Ltd; ISIN CND10001PXG4; alt. ISIN CND10000KPW0; alt. ISIN CND10000KSK9; alt. ISIN CND1000133M5; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000710924910P (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
29. CHINA NUCLEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION LIMITED (a.k.a. CHINA NATIONAL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED; a.k.a. CHINA NUCLEAR ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CORP LTD; a.k.a. CHINA NUCLEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION LIMITED; a.k.a. “CNEC”; a.k.a. “CNECC”), No. 12 Chegongzhuang Avenue, Xicheng District, Beijing 100037, China; Equity Ticker 601611 CN; Issuer Name China Nuclear Engineering Corporation Limited; ISIN CNE100002896; alt. ISIN CND10003XJ14; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000717828569P (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
30. CHINA RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED (a.k.a. “CRCC”), East Yard No. 40, Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100855, China; Equity Ticker 601186 CN; alt. Equity Ticker 1186 HK; Issuer Name China Railway Construction Corporation Limited; ISIN CNE1000009T1; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000710935150D (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
31. CHINA SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS CO., LTD. (a.k.a. CHINA SATCOM), China Satellite Communications Tower, Building A, 21st Floor, 65, Zhichun Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100190, China; Equity Ticker 601698 CN; Issuer Name China Satellite Communications Co., Ltd.; ISIN CNE100003PX9; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
32. CHINA SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. CHINA SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY CO LTD; a.k.a. “CSICL”), 72 Kunminghu South Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100097, China; Equity Ticker 601989 CN; Issuer Name CHINA SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY COMPANY LIMITED; ISIN CNE100000J75; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000710935329H (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
33. CHINA SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY GROUP POWER COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. CHINA SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY GROUP POWER; a.k.a. CHINA SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY GROUP POWER CO LTD; a.k.a. CSIC POWER; f.k.a. FENGFAN CO., LTD.; a.k.a. “CSICP”), 72, Kunminghu South Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100097, China; Equity Ticker 600482 CN; Issuer Name China Shipbuilding Industry Group Power; ISIN CNE000001KB1; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 911306007109266097 (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
34. CHINA SOUTH INDUSTRIES GROUP CORPORATION (a.k.a. CHINA SOUTH INDUSTRIES GROUP CO., LTD.; a.k.a. CHINA SOUTH INDUSTRIES GROUP CORPORATION; a.k.a. “CSGC”; a.k.a. “CSIGC”), No. 46, Sanlihe Road, Xicheng District, Beijing 100032, China; No. 10 Yard, Chedaogou, Haidian District, Beijing 100089, China; Issuer Name China South Industries Group Co., Ltd.; alt. Issuer Name China South Industries Group Corporation; ISIN CND10000KTG5; alt. ISIN CND10000K5V9; alt. ISIN CND10000KTF7; alt. ISIN CND10000GGC9; alt. ISIN CND10000K0B2; alt. ISIN CND10000GGD7; alt. ISIN CND10000KTD2; alt. ISIN CND10000K5W7; alt. ISIN CND10001TRP9; alt. ISIN CND10001TRQ7; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000710924929L (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
35. CHINA SPACESAT CO., LTD. (a.k.a. CHINA SPACESAT), Shenzhou Technology Mansion, 12th Floor, 31, Zhongguancun South Avenue, Beijing 100081, China; 12F Shenzhou Building, 31 Zhongguanchun South Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100081, China; Equity Ticker 600118 CN; Issuer Name China Spacesat Co., Ltd.; ISIN CNE000000SM3; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 911100001000274544 (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
36. CHINA STATE SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION LIMITED (a.k.a. CHINA SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION; a.k.a. CHINA STATE SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION; a.k.a. CHINA STATE SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION CO. LTD; a.k.a. “CSC”; a.k.a. “CSSC”), No. 1, Pudong Avenue, Pilot Free Trade Zone, Pudong New District, Shanghai 200135, China; Issuer Name China State Shipbuilding Corporation; alt. Issuer Name China State Shipbuilding Corporation Co. Ltd; ISIN CND100005C60; alt. ISIN CND10000KTB6; alt. ISIN CND10000KT93; alt. ISIN CND100005MX3; alt. ISIN CND100005MX3; alt. ISIN CND10000LD58; alt. ISIN CND10000LLH8; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91310000710924478P (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
37. CHINA TELECOM CORPORATION LIMITED (a.k.a. CHINA TELECOM; a.k.a. CHINA TELECOM CO., LTD; a.k.a. CHINA TELECOM CORP LTD), 31 Jinrong Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100033, China; Equity Ticker CHA US; alt. Equity Ticker CHA RU; alt. Equity Ticker ZCHA DE; alt. Equity Ticker CHA AR; alt. Equity Ticker K3ED SG; alt. Equity Ticker 0728 HK; alt. Equity Ticker ZCH DE; Issuer Name China Telecom Corporation Limited; alt. Issuer Name China Telecom Corp Ltd; alt. Issuer Name China Telecom Co., Ltd; alt. Issuer Name China Telecom Corporation Limited.Co.Ltd; ISIN US1694261033; alt. ISIN CNE1000002V2; alt. ISIN CND100020NC4; alt. ISIN CND1000248G3; alt. ISIN CND10003ND87; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 9111000071093019X7 (China) [CMIC-EO] (Linked To: CHINA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION).
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, CHINA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, a person who operates or has operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC and who has been identified pursuant to E.O. 13959, as amended.
38. CHINA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (a.k.a. CHINA TELECOM; a.k.a. CHINA TELECOM GROUP CO., LTD.), 31 Jinrong Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100033, China; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000100017707H (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
39. CHINA UNICOM (HONG KONG) LIMITED (f.k.a. CHINA UNICOM LIMITED), 75th Floor, The Center, 99 Queen's Road Central, Hong Kong, China; Equity Ticker CHU US; alt. Equity Ticker 762 HK; alt. Equity Ticker XCIA DE; alt. Equity Ticker K3ID SG; alt. Equity Ticker XCI DE; Issuer Name China Unicom (Hong Kong) Limited; ISIN US16945R1041; alt. ISIN HK0000049939; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021 [CMIC-EO] (Linked To: CHINA UNITED NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS GROUP CO., LTD.).
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, CHINA UNITED NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS GROUP CO., LTD., a person who operates or has operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC and who has been identified pursuant to E.O. 13959, as amended.
40. CHINA UNITED NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS GROUP CO., LTD. (a.k.a. CHINA UNICOM; a.k.a. CHINA UNITED NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS GROUP COMPANY LIMITED; f.k.a. CHINA UNITED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION), No. 21, Financial Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100033, China; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91110000MA001HYK9X (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
41. CNOOC LIMITED (a.k.a. CNOOC LTD), Bank of China Tower, 65th Floor, 1, Garden Road, Hong Kong, China; Equity Ticker 00083 HK; alt. Equity Ticker CNU CA; alt. Equity Ticker NC2B DE; alt. Equity Ticker CEO US; Issuer Name CNOOC Limited; alt. Issuer Name CNOOC Ltd; ISIN HK0883013259; alt. ISIN US1261321095; alt. ISIN HK2998013240; alt. ISIN BRC1EODR004; alt. ISIN HK0883013259; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Company Number 0685974 (Hong Kong); Legal Entity Number 549300XIVJCBIGMRUD48 [CMIC-EO] (Linked To: CHINA NATIONAL OFFSHORE OIL CORPORATION).
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, CHINA
42. COSTAR GROUP CO., LTD. (a.k.a. COSTAR GROUP CO; f.k.a. LIDA OPTICAL & ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.), 508, Gongye Road, Nanyang 473003, China; Equity Ticker 002189 CN; Issuer Name Costar Group Co; ISIN CNE100000882; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91410000615301803D (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
43. CSSC OFFSHORE & MARINE ENGINEERING (GROUP) COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. COMEC; f.k.a. GUANGZHOU SHIPYARD INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED), 40, South Fang Cun Road, Liwan District, Guangzhou 510382, China; Equity Ticker 00317 HK; alt. Equity Ticker 600685 CN; Issuer Name CSSC Offshore & Marine Engineering (Group) Company Limited; ISIN CNE100000395; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91440101190499390U (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
44. FUJIAN TORCH ELECTRON TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (a.k.a. TORCH ELECTRON), Hi-Tech Industrial Park, Jiangnan Park, 4, Zihua Road, Licheng district, Quanzhou 362000, China; Equity Ticker 603678 CN; Issuer Name Fujian Torch Electron Technology Co., Ltd; ISIN CNE100001TY3; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 913500001562023628 (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
45. GUIZHOU SPACE APPLIANCE CO., LTD (a.k.a. “SACO”), 7, Honghe Road, Xiaohe District, Guiyang 550009, China; Equity Ticker 002025 CN; Issuer Name Guizhou Space Appliance Co., Ltd; ISIN CNE000001KG0; alt. ISIN CN000A0B7NS3; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91520000730980020A (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
46. HANGZHOU HIKVISION DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (a.k.a. HANGZHOU HIKVISION DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY; a.k.a. HIKVISION), 555, Qianmo Road, Binjiang District, Hangzhou 310051, China; Equity Ticker 002415 CN; Issuer Name Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology; ISIN CNE100000PM8; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91330000733796106P (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the surveillance technology sector of the economy of the PRC.
47. HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO., LTD. (a.k.a. HUAWEI INVESTMENT AND HOLDING CO., LTD.), Building 1, Area B, Bantian Huawei Base, Longgang District, Guangdong, Shenzhen, China; Issuer Name Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd.; alt. Issuer Name Huawei Investment and Holding Co., Ltd.; ISIN CND10003D0F9; alt. ISIN CND100035KT2; alt. ISIN CND10002K3Y6; alt. ISIN CND10002J7T0; alt. ISIN CND1000336F8; alt. ISIN CND1000439R5; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91440300746645251H (China) [CMIC-EO] (Linked To: HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.).
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for owning or controlling, directly or indirectly, HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., a person who operates or has operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC, and operates or has operated in the surveillance technology sector of the economy of the PRC, and who has been identified pursuant to E.O. 13959, as amended.
48. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. (a.k.a. HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO LTD), Huawei Headquarter Office Building, Bantian, Longgang District, Guangdong, Shenzhen 518129, China; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 914403001922038216 (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the surveillance technology sector of the economy of the PRC, and for operating or having operated in the surveillance technology sector of the economy of the PRC.
49. INNER MONGOLIA FIRST MACHINERY GROUP CO., LTD. (f.k.a. BAOTOU BEIFANG CHUANGYE COMPANY LIMITED; a.k.a. FIRMACO), Minzhu Road, Qingshan District, Baotou 014032, China; Equity Ticker 600967 CN; Issuer Name Baotou Beifang Chuangye Co., Ltd.; ISIN CNE000001HP7; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91150000720180740Y (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
50. INSPUR GROUP CO., LTD. (a.k.a. INSPUR GROUP), No. 1036, High-Tech Inspur Road, Jinan, Shandong 250101, China; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 913700001630477270 (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
51. JIANGXI HONGDU AVIATION INDUSTRY CO., LTD. (a.k.a. “HDAA”), P.O. Box 5001-500, Nanchang 330024, China; Xinxi Bridge Road Qingyunpu District, Nanchang 330024, China; Equity Ticker 600316 CN; Issuer Name Jiangxi Hongdu Aviation Industry Co., Ltd.; ISIN CNE0000015N3; alt. ISIN CND10001KJ52; alt. ISIN CND10001KHB9; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91360000705515290C (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
52. NANJING PANDA ELECTRONICS COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. NANJING PANDA; a.k.a. NANJING PANDA ELECTR. CO. LTD.; a.k.a. NANJING PANDA ELECTRONIC CO. LTD.), 7, Jingtian Road, Nanjing 210033, China; Equity Ticker 600775 CN; alt. Equity Ticker 00553 HK; alt. Equity Ticker NNJ DE; Issuer Name Nanjing Panda Electr. Co. Ltd.; alt. Issuer Name Nanjing Panda Electronic Co. Ltd; alt. Issuer Name Nanjing Panda Electronics Company Limited; ISIN CNE1000003T4; alt. ISIN CN0009003921; alt. ISIN CNE000000NB7; alt. ISIN CN0005815195; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91320100134974572K (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
53. NORTH NAVIGATION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (f.k.a. BEIJING NORTH PHENIX INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; f.k.a. CHINA NORTH OPTICAL-ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.), No. 2, Kechuang 15 Street, Economic Technology Development Zone, Beijing, China; Equity Ticker 600435 CN; Issuer Name Beijing North Phenix Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd; ISIN CNE000001F88; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 911100007226144851 (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
54. PANDA ELECTRONICS GROUP CO., LTD. (a.k.a. PANDA ELECTRONICS GROUP LIMITED), No. 301, Zhongshan East Road, Xuanwu District, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210002, China; Target Type State-Owned Enterprise; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 913201921348831521 (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to sections 1(a)(i) and 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC, and for owning or controlling, directly or indirectly, a person who operates or has operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
55. PROVEN GLORY CAPITAL LIMITED (a.k.a. PROVEN GLORY), 263 Main Street, Road Town VG11100, Virgin Islands, British; Issuer Name Proven Glory Capital Limited; ISIN XS1809220830; alt. ISIN XS1808982398; alt. ISIN XS1808982471; alt. ISIN XS1567423501; alt. ISIN XS1567423766; alt. ISIN XS1809220913; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021 [CMIC-EO] (Linked To: HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO., LTD.).
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO., LTD., a person who has been identified pursuant to E.O. 13959, as amended, for owning or controlling, directly or indirectly, HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., a person who operates or has operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC, and operates or has operated in the surveillance technology sector of the economy of the PRC, and who has been identified pursuant to E.O. 13959, as amended.
56. PROVEN HONOUR CAPITAL LIMITED (a.k.a. PROVEN HONOUR; a.k.a. PROVEN HONOUR CAPITAL LTD), C/O Vistra Corporate Services Centre, Wickhams Cay II, Road Town VG1110, Virgin Islands, British; Issuer Name Proven Honour Capital Ltd; alt. Issuer Name Proven Honour Capital Limited; ISIN XS1233275194; alt. ISIN HK0000216777; alt. ISIN XS1401816761; alt. ISIN HK0000111952; Target Type Private Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021 [CMIC-EO] (Linked To: HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO., LTD.).
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO., LTD., a person who has been identified pursuant to E.O. 13959, as amended, for owning or controlling, directly or indirectly, HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., a person who operates or has operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC, and operates or has operated in the surveillance technology sector of the economy of the PRC. and who has been identified pursuant to E.O. 13959, as amended.
57. SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (a.k.a. SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION CO., LTD; a.k.a. SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LIMITED; a.k.a. SEMICONDUCTOR MFG INTL CORP; a.k.a. “SMIC”), 18, Zhangjiang Road, Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201203, China; Cayman Islands; Equity Ticker 688981 CN; alt. Equity Ticker 00981 HK; alt. Equity Ticker MKN1 DE; alt. Equity Ticker MKN2 DE; Issuer Name Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation; alt. Issuer Name Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation Limited; alt. Issuer Name Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation Co., Ltd; ISIN KYG8020E1199; alt. ISIN XS1432320429; alt. ISIN US81663N2062; alt. ISIN XS2101828452; alt. ISIN KYG8020E1017; alt. ISIN XS1730881247; alt. ISIN KYG802041031; alt. ISIN CNE1000041W8; alt. ISIN CND100022N41; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021 [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
58. SHAANXI ZHONGTIAN ROCKET TECHNOLOGY COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. SHAANXI ZHONGTIAN ROCKET TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD), Xi'an, China; Equity Ticker 003009 CN; Issuer Name Shaanxi Zhongtian Rocket Technology Co., Ltd; ISIN CNE1000046W7; Target Type Public Company; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91610000741252408P (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
59. ZHONGHANG ELECTRONIC MEASURING INSTRUMENTS COMPANY LIMITED (a.k.a. AVIC ZEMIC; a.k.a. ZEMIC; a.k.a. ZHONGHANG ELECTRONIC MEASURING INSTRUMENTS CO., LTD), High-Tech Industrial Development Zone, 166, West Avenue, Xi'an 710119, China; Equity Ticker 300114 CN; Issuer Name Zhonghang Electronic Measuring Instruments Co., Ltd; ISIN CNE100000T08; Effective Date (CMIC) 02 Aug 2021; Purchase/Sales For Divestment Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2022; Listing Date (CMIC) 03 Jun 2021; Unified Social Credit Code (USCC) 91610000745016111K (China) [CMIC-EO].
Identified pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 13959, as amended, for operating or having operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the economy of the PRC.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, July 8, 2021.
Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be held Thursday, July 8, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, July 22, 2021.
Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or (737) 800-4060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Thursday, July 22, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information please contact Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or (737-800-4060), or write TAP Office 3651 S IH-35, STOP 1005 AUSC, Austin, TX 78741, or post comments to the website:
The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, July 13, 2021.
Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be held Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Rosalind Matherne. For more information please contact Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will still be held via teleconference.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, July 13, 2021.
Conchata Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or 336-690-6217.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held Tuesday, July 13, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Conchata Holloway. For more information please contact Conchata Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or 336-690-6217, or write TAP Office, 4905 Koger Boulevard, Greensboro, NC 27407-2734 or contact us at the website:
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
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
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
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
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before August 9, 2021.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), list two North Carolina species, the Carolina madtom (
This rule is effective July 9, 2021.
This final rule is available on the internet at
For the critical habitat designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated are included in the administrative record and are available at
Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office, 551F Pylon Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606; telephone 919-816-6408. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Please refer to the proposed listing and critical habitat rule (84 FR 23644; May 22, 2019) for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog, and the document reopening the May 22, 2019, proposed rule's public comment period (85 FR 45839; July 30, 2020), for detailed descriptions of previous Federal actions concerning these species.
Species status assessment (SSA) teams prepared SSA reports for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog. The SSA teams were composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA reports each represent a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species. The SSA reports and other materials relating to this rule can be found on the Service's Southeast Region website at
This final rule incorporates several changes to our proposed rule (84 FR 23644; May 22, 2019) based on the comments we received. These changes are summarized in the document that reopened the proposed rule's public comment (85 FR 45839; July 30, 2020), as well as below under Summary of Comments and Recommendations. Minor, nonsubstantive changes and corrections are made throughout this rule in response to comments. Based on these comments, we also incorporate as appropriate new information into our SSA reports, including updated survey information. However, the information we received during the public comment period on the proposed rule did not change our determination that the Carolina madtom is an endangered species and the Neuse River waterdog is a threatened species.
We received substantive comments on the proposed rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (“4(d) rule”) for the Neuse River waterdog and the critical habitat designations for both species. We have made changes to this rule as a result of the public comments we received. We modified the language in the Neuse River waterdog 4(d) rule for each exception for incidental take. In summary, we modified the exception for species restoration efforts by State wildlife agencies to include monitoring, which is necessary to determine the success of captive propagation and stocking efforts; for channel restoration projects to add language that would require surveys for and relocation of Neuse River waterdogs observed prior to commencement of restoration action; for bank stabilization projects to add a requirement that appropriate “native” vegetation, including woody and herbaceous species appropriate for the region and habitat, be used for stabilization; and for forestry-related actions to reflect alternative language provided by the North Carolina Forest Service (NCFS) (see
As indicated in the document that reopened the proposed rule's public comment (85 FR 45839; July 30, 2020), we have also changed the way in which the provisions of the 4(d) rule for the Neuse River waterdog will appear at 50 CFR 17.43(f). Specifically, we no longer set forth a blanket statement applying all prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 to the Neuse River waterdog. Instead, we set forth specific prohibitions and exceptions to those prohibitions in the 4(d) rule, but the substance of the prohibitions and the exceptions to those prohibitions, as included in the May 22, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 23644), has not changed.
In the proposed rule published on May 22, 2019 (84 FR 23644), and in the document published on July 30, 2020 (85 FR 45839) that reopened the comment period on the May 22, 2019, proposed rule, we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposals. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposals. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Raleigh News and Observer on June 3, 2019, and on August 9, 2020. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided during the comment periods has either been incorporated directly into the final determinations or is addressed below. For topics we received comments on during both comment periods (
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the information contained in the SSA reports. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final SSA reports. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary
We received comments from three State agencies, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the North Carolina Forest Service (NCFS), and the Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF). Because we received several comments from both NCFS and VDOF and from the public regarding forestry considerations, we have integrated NCFS/VDOF comments and responses under
During the initial comment period, we received 83 public comments on the proposed rule, and during the reopened comment period, we received 16 public comments. A majority of the comments supported the listing determinations and critical habitat designations, none opposed the designations, and some included suggestions on how we could refine or improve the 4(d) rule for the Neuse River waterdog and the critical habitat designations for both species. All substantive information provided to us during the comment periods has been incorporated directly into this final rule or is addressed below. For topics for which we received comments during both comment periods (
Development and refinement of forest management BMPs has resulted in substantial improvements to forestry's impacts on water quality in recent decades, and the reduced risks of these practices to water quality justify the Service's inclusion of a 4(d) exception for forestry for the Neuse River waterdog. North Carolina Forestry BMPs, properly implemented, protect water quality and help conserve aquatic species, including the Neuse River waterdog.
The Service has determined that the Carolina madtom meets the definition of an endangered species, and the Act does not allow issuance of a 4(d) rule for a species listed as endangered.
Development and refinement of BMPs has resulted in substantial improvements to forestry's impacts on water quality in recent decades and has created a culture of water stewardship in the forest landowner community, making this stakeholder group an important ally in the conservation of imperiled species. The reduced risks to water quality justify the Service's inclusion of an exception for incidental take associated with forestry BMPs in the 4(d) rule for the Neuse River waterdog, and the remaining presence of risk supports the need to specify conditions required for the exception to apply. Incidental take associated with forest management activities in the range of Neuse River waterdog that do not meet the conditions of the exception in the 4(d) rule may still occur via consultation with the Service under section 7, or a conservation agreement under section 10, of the Act.
Because BMPs in North Carolina are voluntary, existing BMPs will be sufficient for the protection of the Neuse River waterdog if, and only if, they are widely implemented in watersheds where the species occurs and are implemented appropriately such that all forest management operations maintain compliance with North Carolina's FPGs and achieve management goals related to conserving and maintaining suitable habitat for the Neuse River waterdog (which closely mirror the FPG requirements). North Carolina Forestry BMPs, properly implemented, protect water quality and help conserve aquatic species, including the Neuse River waterdog. Forest landowners who properly implement those BMPs are helping conserve the waterdog, and this 4(d) rule is an incentive for all landowners to properly implement BMPs to avoid any take implications. Further, those forest landowners who are third-party-certified to a credible forest management standard are providing audited certainty that BMP implementation is taking place across the landscape; thus, the exception for incidental take in the 4(d) rule will apply to their forestry activities.
Most aquatic insects are not considered rare species, and immigration by aquatic insects back into an affected stream reach may be facilitated by downstream drift or other mechanisms, including the adult winged flight stage, which allows immigration from other nearby waterbodies or from downstream reaches. The Neuse River waterdog is a rare, obligate aquatic salamander with different ecological requirements and a decades-long lifespan, compared to the shorter lifespan and aquatic larval phase of macroinvertebrate insects typically emphasized in assessments (
The species-specific nature of 4(d) rules is inherently resistant to precedent setting, because the Service must consider the needs of the species being listed as threatened and issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of that species. The proposed 4(d) rule for the Neuse River waterdog did not prescribe management restrictions; rather, it outlined prohibitions (
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the Carolina madtom is presented in the SSA report (Service 2021a, pp. 5-8).
The Carolina madtom (
The nesting season extends from about mid-May to late July. Nest sites are often found under or in relic freshwater mussel shells, under large pieces of water-logged tree bark, or in discarded beverage bottles and cans partially buried on the stream bottom. The female produces about 80 to 300 eggs, and the male guards the nest until the eggs hatch. Clutch sizes average 152 larvae, and life expectancy for these fish is at least 4 years.
The Carolina madtom is a bottom-dwelling insectivore that feeds primarily during the night, with peaks at dawn and dusk. More than 95 percent of the food organisms in the Carolina madtom stomachs were larval midges, mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies, and beetle larvae (Burr et al. 1989, p. 78).
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the Neuse River waterdog is presented in the SSA report (Service 2021b, pp. 5-10).
The Neuse River waterdog (
Neuse River waterdogs have a reddish-brown skin with black spots, reaching up to 9 inches (in) in length as adults. Their underside is brownish-grey, and they have external bushy dark red gills. They eat large aquatic arthropods, aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, and even some vertebrates like small fish. Like most waterdogs, they are opportunistic feeders who lie in wait for a small organism to swim or float by. All prey are ingested whole, and larger items are sometimes regurgitated and then re-swallowed.
Neuse River waterdogs are found in streams ranging from larger headwater streams in the Piedmont to coastal streams up to the point of saltwater intrusion. None have been found in lakes or ponds. They are usually found in streams wider than 15 meters (m), deeper than 100 centimeters (cm), and with a main channel flow rate greater than 10 cm per second. Further, they need clean, flowing water characterized by high dissolved oxygen concentrations. The preferred habitats vary with the season, temperature, dissolved oxygen content, flow rate, and precipitation; however, the waterdogs maintain home retreat areas under rocks, in burrows, or under substantial cover in backwater or eddy areas. As with other permanently aquatic salamanders, when interstitial spaces between substrates become compacted or filled with fine sediment, the amount of available foraging habitat and protective cover for salamanders is reduced, resulting in population declines (83 FR 257; January 3, 2018).
The longevity of Neuse River waterdogs is not known; however, their close relative
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term “foreseeable future” extends only so far into the future as the Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. “Reliable” does not mean “certain”; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the species' biological response include species-specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and other demographic factors.
Our proposed rule described “foreseeable future” as the extent to which we can reasonably rely on predictions about the future in making determinations about the future conservation status of the species. The Service since codified its understanding of foreseeable future in 50 CFR 424.11(d) (84 FR 45020). In those regulations, we explain the term “foreseeable future” extends only so far into the future as the Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. The Service will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best available data and taking into account considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. The Service need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time. These regulations did not significantly modify the Service's interpretation; rather they codified a framework that sets forth how the Service will determine what constitutes the foreseeable future based on our long-standing practice. Accordingly, though regulations do not apply to the final rule for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog because they were proposed prior to their effective date, they do not change the Service's assessment of foreseeable future for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog as contained in our proposed rule and in this final rule.
The SSA reports document the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding the status of each species, including an assessment of the potential threats to each species. The SSA report does not represent a decision by the Service on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. It does, however, provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA reports; the full SSA reports can be found at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0092 and on
To assess viability of Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), and representation supports the ability of the species to adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA process involved making predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory decision.
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of each species and its resources, and the threats that influence each species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability.
To evaluate the current and future viability of the Carolina madtom, we considered a range of conditions to allow us to assess the species' resiliency, representation, and redundancy. We assessed resiliency for the Carolina madtom using population factors (Management Unit (MU) occupancy over time, approximate abundance, and recruitment) and habitat elements (water quality, water quantity, habitat connectivity, and instream substrate). For the purposes of this assessment, populations were delineated using the same three river basins that Carolina madtoms have historically occupied, namely the Tar, Neuse, and Trent River basins. Populations were further delineated using MUs, defined as one or more hydrologic unit code (HUC) 10 watersheds that species experts identified as the most appropriate unit for assessing population-level resiliency. To assess resiliency, we analyzed population factors as well as habitat elements that were determined in our analysis of the species' needs to have the most influence on the species. We then assessed the overall condition of each population. Overall population condition rankings were determined by combining the two population factors and four habitat elements. For a more detailed explanation of the condition categories, see the SSA report (Service 2021a, pp. 15-19).
Metrics that speak to a species' adaptive potential, such as genetic and ecological variability, can be used to assess representation. Representation for the Carolina madtom can be described in terms of ecological variation seen in river basin variability (Tar, Trent, and Neuse River basins) and physiographic variability (eastern Piedmont and Coastal Plain). We assessed Carolina madtom redundancy by first evaluating occupancy within each of the hydrologic units that constitute MUs, and then we evaluated occupancy at the MU, and ultimately the population level.
The historical range of the Carolina madtom included streams and rivers in the Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, and Trent basins, with documented historical distribution in 31 HUC10s in 11 MUs across the three populations (see Table 1, below). The results of surveys conducted from 2011 to 2018 suggest that the currently occupied range of the Carolina madtom includes four MUs from two populations, corresponding to the Tar and Neuse River basins; however, only one population (Tar) has multiple documented occurrences within the past 5 years. The species has been extirpated from the southern portion of its range, including a large portion of the Neuse River basin and the entire Trent River basin. The Carolina madtom currently occupies 9 of the 31 historically occupied HUC10s (with “currently” defined as the observation of at least one specimen from 2011 to 2018), 7 of which are in the Tar River basin and 2 in the Neuse River basin. At the population level, the overall current condition (= resiliency) was estimated to be moderate for the Tar population, very low for the Neuse population, and likely extirpated for the Trent population.
We estimated that the Carolina madtom currently has low adaptive potential due to limited representation in two river basins and two physiographic regions. The species retains 33 percent of its known river basin variability, considering greatly reduced variability observed in the Neuse River population. In addition, compared to historical occupancy, the species currently retains very limited physiographic variability in the Coastal Plain (14 percent) and moderate variability in the Piedmont (56 percent).
The range of the Carolina madtom has always been very narrow, limited to the Tar, Neuse, and Trent River drainages. Within the identified representation areas, the species retains redundancy within the Tar River population (three MUs currently extant); however, it has limited redundancy (two MUs extant) in the Neuse River population and no redundancy (extirpated) in the Trent River population. Overall, the species has lost 55 percent of its redundancy across its narrow, endemic range.
To evaluate the current and future viability of the Neuse River waterdog, we assessed a similar range of conditions as described above for Carolina madtom to allow us to consider the species' resiliency, representation, and redundancy. As with the madtom, populations were delineated using the three river basins that Neuse River waterdogs have historically occupied (
Representation for the Neuse River waterdog can be described in terms of the size and range of the river systems it inhabits (medium streams to large rivers in three river basins), and
The historical range of the Neuse River waterdog included third and fourth order sized streams and rivers in the Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, and Trent basins, with documented historical distribution in 40 HUC10s in nine MUs across the three populations (see Table 2, below). Currently, the Neuse River waterdog is extant in all nine identified MUs; however, within those MUs, it is presumed extirpated from 35 percent (14 out of 40) of the historically occupied HUC10s, and another 25 percent of the streams are in low or very low condition. Of the nine MUs, two (22 percent) are estimated to have high resiliency, three (33 percent) moderate resiliency, and four (45 percent) low resiliency. At the population level, one of three populations (Tar-Pamlico) is estimated to have moderate resiliency, and two (Neuse and Trent) are estimated to have low resiliency.
We estimated that the Neuse River waterdog currently has moderate adaptive potential, primarily due to ecological representation in three river basins and two physiographic regions. The species retains nearly all of its known river basin variability; however, the variability within the basins is reduced compared to historical distribution. In addition, compared to historical occupancy, the species currently retains moderate physiographic variability in the Coastal Plain (87 percent) and in the Piedmont (67 percent). However, the Piedmont has experienced significant declines in occupancy, with nearly half of the MUs losing species occurrences. Of the 16 historically occupied Piedmont HUC10s, 7 are no longer occupied, and 9 have experienced loss.
Like the madtom, the range of the Neuse River waterdog has always been very narrow, limited to the Tar-Pamlico, Trent, and Neuse River drainages. Within the identified representation areas (
Several natural and anthropogenic factors may impact the status of species within aquatic systems. Generally, these factors can be categorized as either environmental stressors (
Development refers to urbanization of the landscape, and the effects of urbanization may include alterations to water quality, water quantity, and habitat (both instream and streamside) (Service 2021ab, p. 40). Urbanization increases the amount of impervious surfaces, such as paved roads, parking lots, roofs, and even highly compacted soils like sports fields. Impervious surfaces prevent the natural soaking of rainwater into the ground and slow seepage into streams. Instead, the rainwater accumulates and flows rapidly into storm drains, which drain as runoff to local streams. This degrades stream habitat in three ways: Water quantity (high flow during storms), water quality (sediment and pollutants washing into streams), and increased water temperatures due to the surfaces heating the water. Sedimentation, including short-term storm events, has been shown to reduce survival (Honeycutt et al. 2016, pp. 766-767), limit juvenile abundance (Bendik and Dries 2018, pp. 5916-5920), reduce body size (Gray et al. 2004, p. 719), or result in a significant decline in aquatic salamander density in streams (Welsh and Ollivier 1998, pp. 1123-1128; Welsh et al. 2019, pp. 7-10). Concentrations of contaminants, including nitrogen, phosphorus, salts, insecticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and personal care products, increase with urban development (Giddings et al. 2009, p. 2; Bringolf et al. 2010, p. 1,311). Water infrastructure development, including water supply, reclamation, and wastewater treatment, results in several pollution point discharges to streams.
Increasing urbanization results in more road development. By its nature, road development increases impervious surfaces, as well as land clearing and habitat fragmentation. Roads are generally associated with negative effects on the biotic integrity of aquatic ecosystems, including changes in surface water temperatures and patterns of runoff; sedimentation; and adding heavy metals (especially lead), salts, organics, ozone, and nutrients to stream systems (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, p. 18). These changes affect stream-dwelling organisms such as the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog by displacing them from once-preferred habitats, as well as increasing exposure and assimilation of pollutants that can result in growth defects, decreased immune response, and even death. In addition, a common impact of road development is improperly constructed culverts at stream crossings. These culverts act as barriers, either because stream flow through the culvert varies significantly from the rest of the stream or because the culvert ends up being perched, so that aquatic organisms such as these species cannot pass through them.
Carolina madtoms and Neuse River waterdogs prefer clean water with permanent flow and are not tolerant of siltation and turbidity. Benthic vertebrates, such as the madtom and waterdog, have disproportionate rates of imperilment and extirpation due to pollution because stream bottoms are often the first habitats affected, particularly by sedimentation. Sedimentation increases embeddedness of stream substrates, making it more difficult for madtoms or salamanders to
All three of the river basins within the range of the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog are affected by development, from an average of 7 percent in the Tar River basin to an average of 13 percent in the Neuse River basin (based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data). The Neuse River basin contains one-sixth of the entire State's human population, indicating heavy development pressure on the watershed. The Middle Neuse MU contains 182 impaired stream miles, 9 major discharges, 272 minor discharges, and nearly 4,000 road crossings, all affecting the quality of the habitat for both species. The Middle Neuse is also 31 percent developed, with nearly 8 percent impervious surface, which changes natural streamflow, reduces appropriate stream habitat, and decreases water quality throughout the MU. For complete data on all of the populations, refer to appendices A and D of the SSA reports.
The main impacts to the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom from agricultural practices occur from water pumping for irrigation and when best management practices (BMPs) for conservation are not followed, causing sedimentation, and nutrient and chemical pollution. Sedimentation can fill interstitial spaces of streambed substrates, altering habitat suitability of nesting and retreat sites for madtoms and waterdogs; it can coat leaf litter, diminishing or destroying waterdog foraging habitat; and it can smother and kill eggs. Sedimentation from agriculture has been linked to reduced body size in salamanders and other amphibians (Gray 2002, pp. 23-34, 48, 105; Gray et al. 2004, pp. 719, 727). Fertilizers and animal manure, which are both rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, are the primary sources of nutrient pollution from agricultural sources. Excess nutrients impact water quality when it rains or when water and soil containing nitrogen and phosphorus wash into nearby waters or leach into the water table or groundwater. Confined animal feeding operations and feedlots can cause degradation of aquatic ecosystems and may cause direct effects to the species (
Excessive water withdrawal or water withdrawal done illegally (without the necessary permit, during dry times of year) may cause impacts to the amount of water available to downstream sensitive areas during low flow months, resulting in dewatering of channels and displacement of fish and permanently aquatic salamanders, leading in turn to potential desiccation and death. According to the 2011 National Land Cover Data, all of the watersheds within the range of the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog are affected by agricultural land uses, most with 25 percent or more of the watershed having been converted for agricultural use.
Silvicultural activities, when performed according to strict forest practices guidelines (FPGs) or BMPs, can retain adequate conditions for aquatic ecosystems; however, when FPGs/BMPs are not followed or if they fail, these practices can also contribute to the myriad of stressors facing aquatic systems in the Southeast, including North Carolina. Both small- and large-scale clearing of forests have been shown to have a significant impact upon the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of adjacent small streams (Allan 1995, pp. 324-327; Valente-Neto 2015, p. 116). Clearcutting and harvests in riparian systems can eliminate shade provided by forest canopies, exposing streams to more sunlight and increasing the instream water temperature (Swift and Messer 1971, p. 111; Hewlett and Forston 1982, p. 983; GB Rishel 1982, p. 112; Lynch et al. 1984, p. 161; Allan 1995, p. 325; Keim and Shoenholtz 1999, p. 197; Carroll et al. 2004, p. 275; B.D. Clinton 2011, p. 979; Caldwell et al. 2014, p. 3). The increase in stream temperature and light after deforestation alters the macroinvertebrate and other aquatic species richness and abundance composition in streams (Wenger 1999, p. 35; Caldwell et al. 2014, p. 3). As stated above, both the Neuse River waterdog and Carolina madtom are sensitive to changes in temperature, and sustained temperature increases will stress and possibly lead to mortality for these species.
Forestry activities can include the construction of logging roads through the riparian zone, and this can directly degrade nearby stream environments. Roads can cause point-source pollution and sedimentation, as well as sedimentation traveling downstream into sensitive habitats. These effects lead to stress and mortality for both species, as discussed above under “Development and Pollution,” and as reported in studies of forestry-related sedimentation effects on survival of aquatic vertebrates (Lowe et al. 2004, entire; Moseley et al. 2008, entire; Peterman & Semlitsch 2009, entire). While BMPs are presently widely adhered to, they were not always common practice, and implementation is not perfect. The most recent surveys of the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River basins show that the average BMP implementation rate is approximately 88 to 90 percent (Coats 2017, p. 38). Accordingly, while improper implementation is uncommon, failure to implement or inadequate implementation can have negative effects on sensitive aquatic species. Further, the most recent assessment of forestry BMPs in North Carolina reported that improperly implemented BMPs associated with streamside management zones and stream crossings were frequently associated with risks to water quality (Coats 2017, p. 9).
There are many areas across North Carolina where invasive species have invaded aquatic communities; are competing with native species for food, light, or breeding and nesting areas; and are impacting biodiversity. The flathead catfish (
Hydrilla (
Red swamp crayfish (
Extinction of some North American freshwater fish can be traced to impoundment and inundation of riffle habitats in all major river basins of the central and eastern United States. Upstream of dams, the change from flowing to impounded waters, increased depths, increased buildup of sediments, decreased dissolved oxygen, and the drastic alteration in resident fish populations can threaten the survival of fish and aquatic salamanders and their overall reproductive success. Downstream of dams, fluctuations in flow regimes, minimal releases and scouring flows, seasonal dissolved oxygen depletion, reduced or increased water temperatures, and changes in fish assemblages can also threaten the survival and reproduction of many aquatic species. Dams have also been identified as causing genetic segregation or isolation in river systems—resident species can no longer move freely through different habitats and may become genetically isolated from other populations throughout the river. Improperly constructed culverts at stream crossings also can act as significant barriers and have some similar effects as dams on stream systems. Fluctuating flows through the culvert can vary significantly from the rest of the stream, preventing aquatic species passage and scouring downstream habitats. If a culvert ends up being perched above the stream bed, aquatic organisms cannot pass through it. All of the MUs containing Neuse River waterdogs and Carolina madtom populations have been impacted by dams, with as few as 11 dams in the Contentnea Creek MU to 287 dams in the Middle Neuse MU.
The Neuse River waterdog and its habitat face impacts from oil and gas production, coal power, hydropower, and the use of biofuels. Coal mined from other States is used for energy production in North Carolina. Damage to fish and wildlife from exposure to coal ash slurry ranges from physiological, developmental, and behavioral toxicity to major population- and community-level changes. Contamination of aquatic habitats by coal-combustion residue can result in the accumulation of metals and trace elements in larval amphibians, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, selenium, and vanadium, potentially leading to developmental, behavioral, and physiological effects (Rowe et al. 2002, entire). As recently as October 2016, Neuse River waterdogs in the Neuse River were exposed to coal ash slurry when Hurricane Matthew caused inundation of coal ash storage ponds. Coal-fired power plants pump large volumes of water to produce electricity, and aquatic organisms such as larval waterdogs can be pulled in and killed unless measures are sufficient to keep organisms from being impacted. After water is used for electricity production, it is returned to surface waters, but the temperature can be considerably higher than the temperature of the stream, reducing the ability of the species to spawn.
Hydropower as a domestic energy source is becoming more prevalent in North Carolina, including areas where the Neuse River waterdog occurs. Like other impoundments, streams and rivers impounded by hydropower dams are changed from lotic systems to lentic systems, fragmenting habitats and disrupting movements and migrations of fish and other aquatic organisms like the Neuse River waterdog. Downstream water quality can also suffer from low dissolved oxygen levels and altered temperatures. In addition, hydropower generation can significantly change flow regimes downstream of hydropower dams, and can affect other riverine processes, such as sediment transport, nutrient cycling, and woody debris transport.
Potential impacts to both species from oil and gas extraction are numerous; they include water quality and water quantity impacts, riparian habitat fragmentation and conversion, increased sand mining (used in oil and gas extraction), and increased road and utility corridors. While oil and gas extraction currently does not, and likely will not, occur in the Tar River basin due to lack of subsurface shale deposits, impacts from shale gas extraction could occur in the Neuse River basin (Service 2021b, p. 46). Future impacts from oil and gas exploration and production are certain, as North Carolina has recently begun to allow fracking operations to drill for natural gas Statewide.
Aquatic systems are encountering changes and shifts in seasonal patterns of precipitation and runoff as a result of climate change. While both of these species have evolved in habitats that experience seasonal fluctuations in discharge, global weather patterns (
Droughts have impacted all river basins within the range of both species, from an “abnormally dry” ranking for North Carolina in 2001 on the Southeast Drought Monitor scale to the highest ranking of “exceptionally dry” for the entire range of both species in 2002 and 2007. The 2015 drought data indicated
In addition to individually impacting the species, it is likely that several of the above summarized risk factors are acting synergistically or additively on both species. The combined impact of multiple stressors is likely more harmful than a single stressor acting alone. For instance, effects of sedimentation and predatory fishes on large aquatic salamanders have been found, in which larvae were more affected by predatory fishes and adults were more affected by sedimentation, suggesting that persistence of salamanders was especially threatened in streams with both stressors (Lowe et al. 2004, pp. 164, 167-170). As an example, within Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog habitat, there are 182 miles of impaired streams in the Middle Neuse MU. They have low benthic-macroinvertebrate scores, low dissolved oxygen, and low pH, and they contain
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA reports, we have not only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the current and future condition of the species. Our assessment of the current and future conditions encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and cumulatively. Our current and future condition assessment is iterative because it accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
The Service and State wildlife agencies are working with numerous partners to provide technical guidance and offer conservation tools to meet both species and habitat needs in aquatic systems in North Carolina. Land trusts are targeting key parcels for acquisition; Federal, State, and university biologists are surveying and monitoring species occurrences; and there has been increased interest in efforts for captive propagation and species population restoration via augmentation, expansion, and reintroduction efforts, especially for the Carolina madtom. However, some of these programs are in their infancy, and currently none provides species-level protection at a scale such that the species would not warrant listing under the Act.
For the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of the species to sustain populations in the wild over time. To address uncertainty associated with the degree and extent of potential future stressors and their impacts on species' requisites, resiliency, redundancy, and representation were assessed using four plausible future scenarios. These scenarios were based, in part, on the results of urbanization and climate models that predict changes in habitat used by the Carolina madtom and the Neuse River waterdog. We developed scenarios by eliciting expert information on two main stressors, urbanization and climate change, that will impact the species in the future. The models that were used to forecast both factors projected 50 years into the future. Using the best available data to forecast plausible future scenarios allows the Service to determine if a species may become an endangered species in the foreseeable future. Relatively long species' life spans, well-developed downscaled climate models specific to the region, and adequate human population growth data available for the Southeast region provide some confidence in the range of outcomes predicted over 50 years. Beyond that timeframe, there is too much uncertainty in threats that will be occurring on the landscape and how the species may respond to those threats. For more detailed information on these models and their projections, please see the SSA reports (Service 2021ab, chapter 5).
In the first scenario, the “Status Quo” scenario, factors that influence current populations of the Carolina madtom and the Neuse River waterdog were assumed to follow current trends over the 50-year time horizon. Climate models predict that, if emissions continue at current rates, the Southeast will experience an increase in low flow (drought) events (IPCC 2013, p. 7). Likewise, this scenario assumed the `business as usual' (BAU) pattern of urban growth, which predicts that urbanization will continue to increase rapidly (Terando et al. 2014, p. 1). This continued growth in development means increases in impervious surfaces, increased variability in streamflow, channelization of streams or clearing of riparian areas, and other negative effects explained above under “Development and Pollution.” The “Status Quo” scenario also assumed that current conservation efforts would remain in place but that no new actions would be taken.
In the second scenario, the “Pessimistic” scenario, factors that negatively influence Neuse River waterdog and the Carolina madtom populations get worse; reflecting Climate Model representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5 (Wayne 2013, p. 11), effects of climate change are expected to be magnified beyond what is experienced in the “Status Quo” scenario. These predicted effects include extreme heat, more
In the third scenario, labeled the “Optimistic” scenario, factors that influence population and habitat conditions of the Neuse River waterdog and the Carolina madtom are expected to be somewhat improved. Reflecting Climate Model RCP 2.6 (Wayne 2013, p. 11), climate change effects are predicted to be minimal under this scenario and would not include increased temperatures, and storms or droughts are as set forth in the “Status Quo” and “Pessimistic” scenario predictions. Urbanization is also predicted to have less impact in this scenario, as reflected by effects that are slightly lower than BAU model predictions (Terando et al. 2014, table 5-1). Because water quality, water flow, and habitat impacts are predicted to be less severe in this scenario as compared to others, it is expected that the species would have slightly positive responses. Targeted permanent protection of riparian areas is a potential conservation activity that could benefit these species, and current efforts are considered successful as part of the “Optimistic” scenario.
In the fourth scenario, the “Opportunistic” scenario, those landscape-level factors (
For details regarding the predicted future under each scenario, see chapter 6 of the SSA reports for each species (Service 2021ab).
Estimates of future resiliency for the Carolina madtom are low, as are estimates for representation and redundancy. Similarly, estimates of future resiliency for the Neuse River waterdog are moderate to low, as are estimates for representation and redundancy. Both species face a variety of risks from declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats, and the madtom is particularly susceptible to predation from the invasive flathead catfish. These risks, which are expected to be exacerbated by urbanization and climate change, were important factors in our assessment of the future viability of the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog. Given losses of resiliency, populations become more vulnerable to extirpation, resulting in concurrent losses in representation and redundancy. Predictions of Carolina madtom habitat conditions and population factors suggest possible extirpation in one of two currently extant populations. The one population predicted to remain extant (Tar) is expected to be characterized by low occupancy and abundance. Predictions of Neuse River waterdog habitat conditions and population factors suggest possible extirpation in two of three currently extant populations. Similar to the madtom, the one waterdog population predicted to remain extant (Tar-Pamlico) is expected to be characterized by low occupancy and abundance in the future.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species.” The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species” because of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
The historical range of the Carolina madtom included third and fourth order streams and rivers in the Tar, Neuse, and Trent drainages, with documented historical distribution in 11 MUs within 3 former populations, the Tar, Neuse, and Trent. The Carolina madtom is presumed extirpated from 55 percent (6) of the historically occupied MUs. Of the five MUs that remain occupied, one is estimated to have high resiliency, one with moderate resiliency, two with low resiliency, and one with very low resiliency. Scaling up from the MU to the population level, the Tar population is estimated to have moderate resiliency, the Neuse population is characterized by very low resiliency, and the Trent population is presumed to be extirpated. Of streams that were once part of the species' range, 82 percent are estimated to be in low condition or likely extirpated. Once known to occupy streams in two physiographic regions, the species has also lost substantial physiographic representation with an estimated 44 percent loss in Piedmont watersheds and an estimated 86 percent loss in Coastal Plain watersheds.
Estimates of current resiliency for Carolina madtom are low, as are estimates for representation and redundancy. The Carolina madtom faces a variety of ongoing threats from declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats (Factor A). This species also faces the threat of predation from the invasive flathead catfish (Factor C). These threats are expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization (Factor A) and climate change (Factor E). Given current rates of resiliency, populations are vulnerable to extirpation from stochastic events, in turn, resulting in concurrent losses in representation and redundancy.
The current conditions as assessed in the Carolina madtom SSA report show that 55 percent of the management units over three populations (river systems) are presumed extirpated. The Carolina madtom currently has two of three
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We have determined that the Carolina madtom is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, and accordingly, did not undertake an analysis of any significant portions of its range. Because we have determined that the Carolina madtom warrants listing as endangered throughout all of its range, our determination is consistent with the decision in
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the Carolina madtom meets the Act's definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we are listing the Carolina madtom as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The historical range of the Neuse River waterdog likely included all third and fourth order streams and rivers throughout the Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, and Trent drainages, with documented historical distribution in nine MUs within three populations. Of those nine occupied MUs, two (22 percent) are estimated to have high resiliency, two (22 percent) moderate resiliency, and five (56 percent) low resiliency. Scaling up from the MU to the population level, one of three populations (the Tar population) is estimated to have moderate resiliency, and two (the Neuse and Trent populations) are characterized by low resiliency. In short, 60 percent of streams that were once part of the species' range are estimated to be in low condition or likely extirpated. The species is known to occupy streams in two physiographic regions, but it has lost physiographic representation with an estimated 43 percent loss in Piedmont watersheds and an estimated 13 percent loss in Coastal Plain watersheds.
The Neuse River waterdog faces threats from declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, and deterioration of instream habitats (Factor A). These threats are expected to be exacerbated by continued urbanization (Factor A) and effects of climate change (Factor E). Given current and future decreases in resiliency, populations become more vulnerable to extirpation from stochastic events, in turn, resulting in concurrent losses in representation and redundancy. The range of plausible future scenarios of Neuse River waterdog habitat conditions and population factors suggest reduced viability into the future. Under Scenario 1, the “Status Quo” option, a loss of resiliency, representation, and redundancy is expected. Under this scenario, we predicted that no MUs would remain in high condition, two would be in moderate condition, four would be in low condition, and three MUs would be likely extirpated. Redundancy would be reduced to four MUs in the Tar Population and two in the Neuse Population. Representation would also be reduced, primarily with reduced variability in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain.
Under scenario two, the “Pessimistic” option, we predicted substantial losses of resiliency, representation, and redundancy. Redundancy would be reduced to four MUs in one population, and the resiliency of that population is expected to be low. Five MUs were predicted to be extirpated, and, of the remaining four MUs, all would be in low condition. All measures of representation are predicted to decline under this scenario, leaving remaining Neuse River waterdog populations underrepresented in river basin and physiographic variability.
Under scenario three, the “Optimistic” option, we predicted slightly higher levels of resiliency, representation, and redundancy than were estimated under the Status Quo or Pessimistic options. Three MUs would be in high condition, one in moderate condition, and the remaining five would be in low condition. Despite predictions of population persistence in the Neuse and Trent River basins, these populations are expected to retain only low levels of resiliency; thus, levels of representation are also predicted to decline under this scenario.
Finally, under scenario four, the “Opportunistic” option, we predicted reduced levels of resiliency, representation, and redundancy. One MU would be in high condition, three would be in moderate condition, three would be in low condition, and two would be likely extirpated. Redundancy would be reduced with the loss of the Trent population. Under the “Opportunistic” scenario, representation is predicted to be reduced, with 67 percent of formerly occupied river basins remaining occupied and with reduced variability in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic regions. Both the “Optimistic” and “Opportunistic” scenarios were determined to be “unlikely” in the analysis, while the most likely scenarios were “Status Quo” and “Pessimistic.” Under either of these more likely scenarios, resiliency is low in most of the remaining populations, and many populations are likely extirpated so that redundancy and representation are significantly reduced. This expected reduction in both the number and distribution of resilient populations is likely to make the species vulnerable to catastrophic disturbance.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we predict that the population and habitat factors used to determine the resiliency, representation, and redundancy for the Neuse River waterdog will continue to decline. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Neuse River waterdog is not currently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
First, we considered whether the Neuse River waterdog is presently in danger of extinction and determined that proposing endangered status is not appropriate. The current conditions as assessed in the Neuse River waterdog SSA report show that the species exists in nine MUs over three different populations (river systems) over a majority (65 percent) of the species' historical range. The Neuse River waterdog still exhibits representation across both physiographic regions, and extant populations remain across the range. In short, while the primary threats are currently acting on the species and many of those threats are expected to continue into the future, we did not find that the species is currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. However, according to our assessment of plausible future scenarios, the species is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Fifty years was considered “foreseeable” in this case because it included projections from both available models, and Neuse River waterdogs are a long-lived and slow-growing species. We can reliably predict both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats over 50 years as presented in the models of predicted urbanization and climate change.
As discussed above, the range of plausible future scenarios of Neuse River waterdog habitat conditions and population factors suggest reduced viability into the future. Both the “Optimistic” and “Opportunistic” scenarios were determined to be “unlikely” in the analysis, while the most likely scenarios were “Status Quo” and “Pessimistic.” Under either of these more likely scenarios, resiliency is low in most of the remaining populations, and many populations are likely extirpated so that redundancy and representation are significantly reduced. This expected reduction in both the number and distribution of resilient populations is likely to make the species vulnerable to catastrophic disturbance. Accordingly, we find the Neuse River waterdog warrants listing as threatened because it is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The court in
Following the court's holding in
For the Neuse River waterdog, we considered whether the threats are geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a biologically meaningful scale. We examined the following threats: Declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, riparian and instream fragmentation, deterioration of instream habitats, and cumulative effects. We found a concentration of threats in the Trent River basin and the Upper and Middle Neuse River portions of the Neuse River waterdog's range. The species has experienced declines throughout its range, but most notably in the Piedmont portions of the upper and Middle Neuse River basin and the southern portion of its range, the Trent River basin.
The Neuse River waterdog population in the Trent has experienced a 67 percent decline in redundancy, with overall very low resiliency currently. Agriculture practices and CAFOs, numerous in the southeastern coastal plain of North Carolina, particularly in the Trent River basin, contribute to poor water quality and fragmented or deteriorated instream habitats, influencing resiliency of Neuse River waterdogs in this portion of the range.
The waterdog populations in the Upper and Middle Neuse basin also exhibit current low resiliency with only a 10 to 30 percent probability of species' persistence. Exceptionally high development pressure from the expanding Triangle Region of central North Carolina has contributed to declines in water quality, loss of stream flow, fragmentation of riparian and instream habitats, and overall deterioration of instream habitat for the Neuse River waterdog.
Since these management units have seen populations reduced to very low condition, this circumstance—in combination with the other threats acting on the species throughout its range—may indicate that there is a concentration of threats in these basins such that the species may be in danger of extinction in these portions of the range.
Small, isolated populations often exhibit reduced levels of genetic variability, which diminishes the species' capacity to adapt and respond to environmental changes, thereby decreasing the probability of long-term persistence. Small populations may experience reduced reproductive vigor, for example, due to inbreeding depression. Isolated individuals may have difficulty reproducing. The problems associated with small population size and vulnerability to random demographic fluctuations or natural catastrophes are further magnified by synergistic interactions with other threats, such as those discussed above. Based on our review of information and the synergistic effects of threats exacerbated by the very low-condition populations in the Trent, Upper Neuse, and Middle Neuse basins, we find that there is information that the populations in these basins may be in danger of extinction.
Because we have determined that the Trent, Upper Neuse, and Middle Neuse basins are portions of the range that may be in danger of extinction, we next evaluate whether those portions of the range may be significant. As an initial note, the Service's most recent definition of “significant” within agency policy guidance has been invalidated by court order (see
We examined the first question of whether these portions could be significant portions of the Neuse River waterdog's range by examining their contribution to the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species. We determined that the Trent MU contains 1 out of 20 occupied HUC10 watersheds identified in the SSA report; thus, the Trent represents approximately 5 percent of the geographical range of the species. Similarly, the Upper Neuse MU contains 1 out of 20 HUC10 watersheds, or approximately 5 percent of the range as well. The Middle Neuse MU contains 4 out of 20 HUC10 watersheds, or approximately 20 percent of the geographical range. Currently, these areas individually or together (representing approximately 30 percent) represent a small portion of the waterdog's geographical range. Because these units collectively have few healthy populations, they are not currently contributing in an important way to the species' overall resiliency.
Neuse River waterdog populations are distributed over two physiographic regions in three river basins, and we considered geographic range as a surrogate for geographic variation and proxy for potential local adaptation and adaptive capacity. The Piedmont streams in the upper and middle Tar and upper and middle Neuse river basins contain similar features and instream habitats as those of the Coastal Plain streams in the lower Tar-Pamlico, lower Neuse, and Trent River basins. There are no data indicating genetic or morphological differentiation between the three river basins for the species. Further, the waterdog occurs in similar aquatic habitats and does not use unique observable environmental or behavioral characteristics attributable to any of the basins. Therefore, it exhibits similar basin-scale use of habitat.
At a management unit level, the Trent, Upper Neuse, and Middle Neuse MUs occur in stream habitat comprised of similar substrate types to the other MUs where the Neuse River waterdog performs the important life-history functions of breeding, feeding, and sheltering, and occurs in areas with water quality sufficient to sustain these essential life-history traits. The Trent, Upper Neuse, and Middle Neuse do not act as a refugia for the species or as an important spawning ground. Since the waterdog occurs in similar aquatic habitats, the Trent, Upper Neuse, and Middle Neuse exhibit similar habitat use as populations in the remainder of the range. Therefore, there is no unique, observable environmental usage or behavioral characteristics attributable to just the Trent, Upper Neuse, and Middle Neuse MUs.
Overall, we found no substantial information that would indicate the Trent, Upper Neuse, or Middle Neuse are portions of the range that may be significant in terms of their overall contribution to the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation, or that they may be significant in terms of high-quality habitat or habitat that is otherwise important for the species' life history. As a result, we determined there is no portion of the Neuse River waterdog's range that constitutes a significant portion of the range. This is consistent with the courts' holdings in
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the Neuse River waterdog meets the Act's definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we are listing the Neuse River waterdog as a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for reclassification from endangered to threatened (“downlisting”) or removal from protected status (“delisting”), and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations,
Following publication of this final rule, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of North Carolina will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph may include, but are not limited to, management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any species listed as an endangered species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
(2) Destruction/alteration of the species' habitat by discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, tiling, pond construction, stream channelization or diversion, or diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow into or out of the wetland (
(3) Activities that result in direct or indirect destruction of riparian habitat;
(4) Modification of the channel or water flow of any stream or removal or destruction of emergent aquatic vegetation in any body of water in which the Carolina madtom is known to occur;
(5) Discharge of chemicals or fill material into any waters in which the Carolina madtom is known to occur; and
(6) Pesticide applications in violation of label restrictions.
It is our policy, as published in the
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as he or she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory language like “necessary and advisable” demonstrates a large degree of deference to the agency
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife, or include a limited taking prohibition (see
Exercising this authority under section 4(d), we have developed a rule that is designed to address the Neuse River waterdog's specific threats and conservation needs. Although the statute does not require the Service to make a “necessary and advisable” finding with respect to the adoption of specific prohibitions under section 9, we find that this rule as a whole satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Neuse River waterdog. As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the Neuse River waterdog is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future primarily due to habitat degradation from stressors influencing water quality, water quantity, instream habitat, and habitat connectivity. The provisions of this 4(d) rule will promote conservation of the Neuse River waterdog by encouraging management of the landscape in ways that meet both land management considerations and the conservation needs of the Neuse River waterdog. The provisions of this rule are one of many tools that the Service will use to promote the conservation of the Neuse River waterdog.
This 4(d) rule will provide for the conservation of the Neuse River waterdog by prohibiting the following activities, except as otherwise authorized or permitted: Importing or exporting; take; possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, receiving, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
Import/export, possession, transportation, sale, and commerce are of concern for many aquatic amphibians, primarily because rare, strange-looking amphibians with frilly external gills (like the Neuse River waterdog) are highly sought after in the global pet trade. Regulating these activities will help protect the Neuse River waterdog from exploitation.
As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, habitat degradation from stressors influencing water quality, water quantity, instream habitat, and habitat connectivity are affecting the status of the Neuse River waterdog. A range of activities have the potential to affect the Neuse River waterdog, including development, pollution, agricultural practices, land conversion, incompatible forest management, invasive species, dams and barriers, and energy production and mining. Regulating incidental take associated with these activities will help preserve the species' remaining populations, slow its rate of decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other threats.
Under the Act, “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in regulations at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating incidental take will help preserve the species' remaining populations, slow their rate of decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other threats. Protecting the Neuse River waterdog from direct forms of take, such as physical injury or killing, whether incidental or intentional, will help preserve and recover the species. Therefore, we prohibit intentional take of Neuse River waterdog, including, but not limited to, capturing, handling, trapping, collecting, or other activities. Also, as discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, habitat degradation from stressors influencing water quality, water quantity, instream habitat, and habitat connectivity are affecting the status of the Neuse River waterdog. Across the species' range, stream and water quality have been degraded physically by sedimentation, pollution, contaminants, impoundments, channelization, destruction of riparian habitat, and loss of riparian vegetation due to development, agricultural practices, land conversion, incompatible forest management, invasive species, dams and barriers, and energy production and mining. Other habitat or hydrological alteration, such as ditching, draining, stream diversion, or diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow, into or out of the stream, will impact the habitat of the species. Therefore, we prohibit incidental take of the Neuse River waterdog by destroying, altering, or degrading the habitat in the manner described above. Regulating incidental take associated with these activities will help preserve Neuse River waterdog populations, slow the rate of population decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other stressors.
During both public comment periods, the Service received numerous comments on the exception for incidental take resulting from silvicultural practices and forest management activities (see Summary of Comments and Recommendations, above). North Carolina's forestry best management practices (BMPs), when properly implemented, protect water quality and help conserve aquatic species, including the Neuse River waterdog. Forest landowners who properly implement those BMPs are helping conserve the waterdog, and this 4(d) rule is an incentive for all landowners to properly implement them
To address any uncertainty regarding which silvicultural and forest management BMPs will satisfy this exception for incidental take resulting from silvicultural practices and forest management activities, our regulations specify the conditions that must be met. We revised our section 4(d) language to clarify that the BMPs must result in protection of the habitat features that provide for the breeding, feeding, sheltering, and dispersal needs of the Neuse River waterdog, which will provide for the conservation of the species. In waterbodies that support listed aquatic species, a wider SMZ is more effective at reducing sedimentation, maintaining lower water temperatures through shading, and introducing food (such as leaves and insects) into the food chain (VADF 2011, p. 37). Ninety percent of the food in forested streams comes from bordering vegetation (NCWRC 2002, p. 6; USFWS 2006, p. 6; Stewart et al. 2000, p. 210; USFWS 2020ab, p. 10). Neuse River waterdogs require cool, well-oxygenated water, and a clean stream bottom (USFWS 2020ab, p. 10). A lack of these features limits the number of waterdogs a stream can support. Aquatic habitat and suitable water temperature can be maintained even during logging operations when streamside vegetation is left intact (VADF 2011, p. 37). The exception for incidental take associated with these activities seeks to ensure these characteristics are maintained for the conservation of the Neuse River waterdog.
Under this final 4(d) rule, all prohibitions and provisions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act apply to the Neuse River waterdog, except that incidental take resulting from the following actions will not be prohibited:
(1) Species restoration efforts by State wildlife agencies, including collection of broodstock, tissue collection for genetic analysis, captive propagation, and subsequent stocking into currently occupied and unoccupied areas within the historical range of the species, and follow-up monitoring.
(2) Channel restoration projects that create natural, physically stable, ecologically functioning streams (or stream and wetland systems) that are reconnected with their groundwater aquifers. These projects can be accomplished using a variety of methods, but the desired outcome is a natural channel with low shear stress (force of water moving against the channel); bank heights that enable reconnection to the floodplain; a reconnection of surface and groundwater systems, resulting in perennial flows in the channel; riffles and pools composed of existing soil, rock, and wood instead of large imported materials; low compaction of soils within adjacent riparian areas; and inclusion of riparian wetlands. Second- to third-order, headwater streams reconstructed in this way offer suitable habitats for the Neuse River waterdog and contain stable channel features, such as pools, glides, runs, and riffles, which could be used by the species for spawning, rearing, growth, feeding, migration, and other normal behaviors. Prior to restoration action, surveys to determine presence of Neuse River waterdog must be performed, and if located, waterdogs must be relocated prior to project implementation.
(3) Bank stabilization projects that use bioengineering methods to replace pre-existing, bare, eroding stream banks with vegetated, stable stream banks, thereby reducing bank erosion and instream sedimentation and improving habitat conditions for the species. Following these bioengineering methods, stream banks may be stabilized using native species live stakes (live, vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped into the ground in a manner that allows the stake to take root and grow), native species live fascines (live branch cuttings, usually willows, bound together into long, cigar shaped bundles), or native species brush layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species layered between successive lifts of soil fill). Native species vegetation includes woody and herbaceous species appropriate for the region and habitat conditions. These methods will not include the sole use of quarried rock (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or gabion structures.
(4) Forestry-related activities, including silvicultural practices, forest management activities, and fire control tactics, that implement State-approved BMPs. In order for this exception to apply to forestry-related activities, these BMPs must achieve all of the following:
(a) Establish a streamside management zone alongside the margins of each waterway.
(b) Restrain visible sedimentation caused by the forestry-related activity from entering the waterway.
(c) Maintain native groundcover within the streamside management zone of the waterway, and promptly re-establish native groundcover if disturbed.
(d) Limit installation of vehicle or equipment crossings of the waterway to only where necessary for the forestry-related activity. Such crossings must:
(i) Have erosion and sedimentation control measures installed to divert surface runoff away and restrain visible sediment from entering the waterway;
(ii) Allow for movement of aquatic organisms within the waterway; and
(iii) Have native groundcover applied and maintained through completion of the forestry-related activity.
(e) Prohibit the use of tracked or wheeled vehicles for reforestation site preparation within the streamside management zone of the waterway.
(f) Prohibit locating log decks, skid trails, new roads, and portable mill sites in the streamside management zone of the waterway.
(g) Prohibit obstruction and impediment of the flow of water within the waterway, caused by direct deposition of debris or soil by the forestry-related activity.
(h) Maintain shade over the waterway similar to that observed prior to the forestry-related activity.
(i) Prohibit discharge of any solid waste, petroleum, pesticide, fertilizer, or other chemical into the waterway.
We reiterate that these actions and activities may have some minimal level of take of the Neuse River waterdog, but are unlikely to negatively impact the species' conservation and recovery efforts. To the contrary, we expect they would have a net beneficial effect on the species. Across the species' range, instream habitats have been degraded physically by sedimentation and by direct channel disturbance. The activities in the 4(d) rule will correct some of these problems, creating more favorable habitat conditions for the species.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities, including those described above, involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
The Service recognizes the special and unique relationship with our State
Nothing in this 4(d) rule will change in any way the recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and protection of the Neuse River waterdog. However, interagency cooperation may be further streamlined through planned programmatic consultations for the species between Federal agencies and the Service.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they must implement “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the specific features that support the life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat that this rule follows (based on the May 22, 2019, publication date of the proposed rule), we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. We will determine whether unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the species by considering the life-history, status, and conservation needs of the species. This will be further informed by any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species to provide a substantive foundation for identifying which features and specific areas are essential to the conservation of the species and, as a result, the development of the critical habitat designation. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation. Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat based on the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the
When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information from the SSA report and other information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
On August 27, 2019, we published a final rule in the
While the implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12) of section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, have recently been amended, the proposed rule that led to this final rule published before the new regulations were implemented; therefore, we are operating under the older implementing regulations that require that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or
(2) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. In determining whether a designation would not be beneficial, the factors the Service may consider include but are not limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of “critical habitat.”
In our SSA report and the proposed listing determination for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog, we determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a threat to both the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog and that those threats in some way can be addressed by section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. Accordingly, such a designation could be beneficial to the species. Therefore, because none of the circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) has been met and because there are no other circumstances the Secretary has identified for which this designation of critical habitat would be not prudent, we have determined that the designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Carolina madtom and the Neuse River waterdog.
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to identify any area that meets the definition of “critical habitat.”
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological needs of the species and habitat characteristics where both species are located. This and other information represent the best scientific data available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical habitat is determinable for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog.
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. The regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 were amended after the publication of the May 22, 2019, proposed rule; see 84 FR 45020 (August 27, 2019). For this rule, we define “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species” as the features that support the life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, vegetation,
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance.
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.
The features may also be combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic needed to support the life history of the species. In considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Carolina madtom from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described above. The primary habitat elements that influence resiliency of both species include water quality, water quantity, substrate, and habitat connectivity. Additional information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2021a) available on
We have determined that the following physical or biological features are essential to the conservation of Carolina madtom:
(1) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats, characterized by geomorphically stable stream channels and banks (
(2) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (which includes the severity, frequency, duration, and seasonality of discharge over time), necessary to maintain instream habitats where the species is found and to
(3) Water quality (including, but not limited to, conductivity, hardness, turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, heavy metals, and chemical constituents) necessary to sustain natural physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.
(4) Aquatic macroinvertebrate prey items, which are typically dominated by larval midges, mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies, and beetle larvae.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Neuse River waterdog from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described above. The primary habitat elements that influence resiliency of both species include water quality, water quantity, substrate, and habitat connectivity. Additional information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2021b) available on
We have determined that the following physical or biological features are essential to the conservation of Neuse River waterdog:
(1) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats, characterized by geomorphically stable stream channels and banks (
(2) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (which includes the severity, frequency, duration, and seasonality of discharge over time), necessary to maintain instream habitats where the species is found and to maintain connectivity of streams with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and sediment for maintenance of the waterdog's habitat, food availability, and ample oxygenated flow for spawning and nesting habitat.
(3) Water quality (including, but not limited to, conductivity, hardness, turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, heavy metals, and chemical constituents) necessary to sustain natural physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.
(4) Invertebrate and fish prey items, which are typically hellgrammites, crayfish, mayflies, earthworms, snails, beetles, centipedes, slugs, and small fish.
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The features essential to the conservation of the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog may require special management considerations or protections to reduce the following threats: (1) Urbanization of the landscape, including (but not limited to) land conversion for urban and commercial use, infrastructure (roads, bridges, utilities), and urban water uses (water supply reservoirs, wastewater treatment, etc.); (2) nutrient pollution and sedimentation from agricultural activities that impact water quantity and quality; (3) significant alteration of water quality; (4) improper forest management or clearcuts in riparian areas; (5) culvert and pipe installation
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to: Use of BMPs designed to eliminate visible sedimentation, erosion, and bank side destruction; protection of riparian corridors and retention of sufficient canopy cover along banks; moderation of surface and ground water withdrawals to maintain natural flow regimes; increased use of stormwater management and reduction of stormwater flows into the systems; modernization of waste water treatment; and reduction of other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the water.
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered for designation as critical habitat.
The current distribution of both species is much reduced from their historical distributions. We anticipate that recovery will require continued protection of existing populations and habitat, as well as ensuring there are adequate numbers of Neuse River waterdogs and Carolina madtoms in stable populations and that these populations occur over a wide geographic area. This strategy will help to ensure that catastrophic events, such as the effects of hurricanes (
Sources of data for these critical habitat designations include multiple databases maintained by North Carolina (NC) State University, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and the NC Natural Heritage Program, as well as numerous survey reports on streams throughout the species' range (see SSA reports). We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat requirements of these species. Sources of information on habitat requirements include studies conducted at occupied sites and published in peer-reviewed articles, agency reports, and data collected during monitoring efforts (Service 2021ab).
We identified stream channels up to bankfull height that currently support populations of the Carolina madtom. We defined “current” as stream channels with observations of the species from 2010 to the present, as described in the SSA report and supported by the species' life history and habitat stability over time (Service 2021a, p. 10). Due to the breadth and intensity of survey effort done for freshwater fishes throughout the known range of the species, it is reasonable to assume that streams with no positive surveys since 2010 should not be considered occupied for the purpose of our analysis. However, this does not preclude the possibility of detecting the species in other locations upon subsequent surveys. For example, we received new data from the NCWRC indicating that one of the previously proposed unoccupied units (Contentnea Creek, Unit 6) has been confirmed to be occupied by the species.
Specific habitat areas were delineated based on Natural Heritage element occurrences (EOs) following NatureServe's occurrence delineation protocol for freshwater fish (NatureServe 2018). These EOs provide habitat for Carolina madtom subpopulations and are large enough to be self-sustaining over time, despite fluctuations in local conditions. The EOs contain stream reaches with interconnected waters so that fish can move between areas, at least during certain flows or seasons. In 2018, we learned that a live Carolina madtom was observed in Contentnea Creek, thus changing the occupancy of that stream to currently occupied.
We consider the following streams to be occupied by the species at the time of listing: Upper Tar, Fishing Creek, Sandy-Swift Creek, Contentnea Creek, and the Little River (see the unit descriptions under Final Critical Habitat Designation, below). The critical habitat designation does not include all streams known to have been occupied by the species historically; instead, it includes only the occupied streams within the historical range that have also retained the physical or biological features that will allow for the maintenance and expansion of existing populations.
We identified stream channels up to bankfull height that currently support populations of the Neuse River waterdog. As with the Carolina madtom, we defined “currently” as stream channels with observations of the species from 2010 to the present, as described in the SSA report and supported by the species' life history and habitat stability over time (Service 2021b, p. 14). Due to the breadth and intensity of survey effort done for amphibians throughout the known range of the species, it is reasonable to assume that streams with no positive surveys since 2010 should not be considered occupied for the purpose of our analysis. However, this does not preclude the possibility of detecting the species in other locations upon subsequent surveys.
Specific occupied habitat areas were delineated based on Natural Heritage EOs following NatureServe's occurrence delineation protocol for aquatic species (NatureServe 2018). These EOs provide habitat for Neuse River waterdog subpopulations and are large enough to be self-sustaining over time, despite fluctuations in local conditions. The EOs contain stream reaches with interconnected waters so that waterdogs can move between areas, at least during certain flows or seasons.
Based on this information, we consider the following subbasins to be currently occupied by the species at the time of listing: Upper, Middle, and Lower Tar River subbasins; Sandy-Swift Creek; Fishing Creek subbasin; Upper, Middle, and Lower Neuse River subbasins; and the Trent River (see the unit descriptions under Final Critical Habitat Designation, below). The critical habitat designation does not include all streams known to have been occupied by the species historically; instead, it includes only the occupied streams within the historical range that have also retained the physical or biological features that will allow for the maintenance and expansion of existing populations.
We are designating two currently unoccupied units for the Carolina madtom that we determined to be essential for the conservation of the
We are not designating any areas outside the geographical area currently occupied by the Neuse River waterdog because we did not find any unoccupied areas that were essential for the conservation of the species. The protection of the nine currently occupied MUs across the physiographic representation of the range will sufficiently reduce the risk of extinction, and by improving the resiliency of populations in these currently occupied streams, viability may increase to the point that the protections of the Act would no longer be necessary.
Critical habitat for these aquatic species includes only stream channels up to bankfull height, where the stream base flow is contained within the channel. When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or biological features necessary for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this rule have been excluded by text in the rule and are not included for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation under the Act with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
We are designating as critical habitat lands that we have determined are occupied at the time of listing (
Units are designated based on one or more of the physical or biological features being present to support Carolina madtom or Neuse River waterdog life-history processes. Some units contain all of the identified physical or biological features and support multiple life-history processes. Some units contain only some of the physical or biological features necessary to support the Carolina madtom's or Neuse River waterdog's particular use of that habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document under Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the discussion of individual units below. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public at
We are designating approximately 257 river miles (414 river kilometers) in 7 units in North Carolina as critical habitat for the Carolina madtom. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Carolina madtom. Five of the units are currently occupied by the species and contain some or all of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Two of the units are unoccupied but are essential to the conservation of the species. All units may require special management considerations or protection to address habitat degradation resulting from the cumulative impacts of land use change and associated watershed-level effects on water quality, water quantity, habitat connectivity, and instream habitat suitability. These stressors are primarily related to habitat changes: The buildup of fine sediments, the loss of flowing water, instream habitat fragmentation, and impairment of water quality; these are all exacerbated by climate change. Table 5 shows the name, land ownership of the riparian areas surrounding the units, and approximate river miles of the designated units for the Carolina madtom. Since all streambeds are navigable waters, the actual critical habitat units are all owned by the State of North Carolina.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Carolina madtom, below.
Unit 1 consists of 26 mi (42 km) of the Upper Tar River, from the confluence with Sand Creek to the confluence with Sycamore Creek, in Granville, Vance, and Franklin Counties. Unit 1 is occupied by the species and contains all of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The riparian land adjacent to the river is entirely privately owned.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land, or are discharged, into the waters, causing excessive growth of vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen. Based on 2014 data, seven stream reaches totaling approximately 38 miles (61.1 km) are “impaired” (as identified on the State's Clean Water Act section 303d list) in this basin. Indicators of impairment are low dissolved oxygen and low benthic-macroinvertebrate assessment scores, and the entire basin is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NCDEQ 2016, pp. 115-117). There are 102 non-major NPDES discharges, including several package wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and biosolids facilities, and 3 major NPDES discharges (Oxford WWTP, Louisburg WWTP, and Franklin County WWTP) in this unit; with expansion of these facilities, or addition of new wastewater discharges, an additional threat to habitat exists in this unit. Special management focused on agricultural and forestry BMPs, implementing highest levels of wastewater treatment practicable, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Unit 2 consists of 66 mi (106 km) of Sandy and Swift Creeks, located downstream from NC561 to the confluence with the Tar River, in Edgecombe, Vance, Warren, Halifax, Franklin, and Nash Counties. This unit is occupied and contains all of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is predominantly privately owned (96 percent), with some conservation parcels (2 percent) and State Game Lands (2 percent).
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land, or are discharged, into the waters, causing excessive growth of vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen; one stream reach totaling approximately 5 miles (8 km) is impaired in this unit. Special management focused on agricultural and forestry BMPs, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Unit 3 consists of approximately 86 mi (138 km), including Fishing Creek from the confluence with Hogpen Branch to the confluence with the Tar River, and Little Fishing Creek from Medoc Mountain Road (SR1002) to the confluence with Fishing Creek, located in Edgecombe, Warren, Halifax, Franklin, and Nash Counties. This unit is occupied by the species and contains all of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The riparian land adjacent to the unit is divided between privately owned parcels (89 percent), State Game Lands and State Park land (5 percent), and conservation parcels (6 percent).
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land, or are discharged, into the waters, causing excessive growth of vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen. Special management focused on agricultural and forestry BMPs, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Unit 4 consists of approximately 20 mi (32 km) of the Upper Neuse River extending from Eno River State Park downstream of NC70 to the confluence with Cabin Creek near Falls Lake impoundment, located in Orange and Durham Counties. This unit is not occupied by the species.
There is one historical record of Carolina madtoms in this unit from 1961, but follow-up surveys in 2011 were not able to find any individuals. Although it is unoccupied, it does contain all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. This unit is itself essential for the conservation of the species because it will provide for population expansion through propagation and reintroduction efforts, and will provide for resiliency in portions of known historical habitat that is necessary to increase the viability (resiliency, redundancy, and representation) of the species. Riparian land adjacent to the unit is almost entirely (79 percent) within State Park Lands, local government conservation parcels, and State Game Lands.
Unit 5 consists of 28 mi (45 km) of the Upper and Lower Little River from NC42 to Johnston/Wayne County line, located in Johnston County. This unit is occupied and contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. The riparian land adjacent to the unit is predominantly privately owned (99 percent) with some (1 percent) State Conservation ownership.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Four stream reaches totaling approximately 17 miles are impaired in the Little River. The designation of impairment is based primarily on low
Unit 6 consists of approximately 15 mi (24 km) of Contentnea Creek from Buckhorn Reservoir to Wiggins Mill Reservoir, located in Wilson County. This unit is occupied by the species, and contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is entirely privately owned.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Two stream reaches totaling approximately 21 miles are impaired in Contentnea Creek. The designation of impairment is based primarily on low benthic-macroinvertebrate assessment scores. There are 3 major and 77 non-major NPDES discharges in this unit. Special management considerations in this unit include retrofitting stormwater systems, eliminating direct stormwater discharges, increasing and protecting existing open space, and maintaining connected riparian corridors.
Unit 7 consists of approximately 15 mi (24 km) of the Trent River between the confluence with Cypress Creek and Beaver Creek, in Jones County. This unit is unoccupied by the species. The last known documentation of the species here was in 1986. Although it is unoccupied, this unit does contain all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. This unit itself is essential for the conservation of the species because it will provide for population expansion through propagation and reintroduction, and will provide for resiliency in portions of known historical habitat that is necessary to increase the viability (resiliency, redundancy, and representation) of the species. All of the riparian land adjacent to this unit is privately owned.
We are designating approximately 779 miles (1,254 kilometers) in 18 units in North Carolina as critical habitat for the Neuse River waterdog. The critical habitat areas described below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, and all units are considered currently occupied by the species. Those 18 units are: (1) Upper Tar River, (2) Upper Fishing Creek, (3) Bens Creek, (4) Fishing Creek Subbasin, (5) Sandy/Swift Creek, (6) Middle Tar River Subbasin, (7) Lower Tar River Subbasin, (8) Eno River, (9) Flat River, (10) Middle Creek, (11) Swift Creek, (12) Little River, (13) Mill Creek, (14) Middle Neuse River, (15) Contentnea Creek/Lower Neuse River Subbasin, (16) Swift Creek (Lower Neuse), (17) Trent River, and (18) Tuckahoe Swamp. Table 6 shows the name, land ownership of the riparian areas surrounding the units, and approximate river miles of the designated units for the Neuse River waterdog. Where appropriate, Table 6 also notes the previous number for units for which the numbering has changed.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for Neuse River waterdog, below.
Unit 1 consists of 12.3 miles (19.8 km) of the Tar River in Granville County from approximately SR1004 (Old NC 75) downstream to SR1622 (Cannady's Mill Road). We revised Unit 1 to add 3.7 miles (6 km) of the Upper Tar River based on a 2018 observation of Neuse River waterdog provided by NCWRC. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is primarily privately owned (80 percent), with several conservation parcels or easements (20 percent). The unit contains all of the physical or
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land, or are discharged, into the waters, causing excessive growth of vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen. Based on 2014 data, seven stream reaches totaling approximately 38 miles (61.1 km) are impaired in this basin. Indicators of impairment are low dissolved oxygen and low benthic-macroinvertebrate assessment scores, and the entire basin is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NCDEQ 2016, pp. 115-117). There are 102 non-major NPDES discharges, including several package WWTPs and biosolids facilities, and 3 major NPDES discharges (Oxford WWTP, Louisburg WWTP, and Franklin County WWTP) in this unit; with expansion of these facilities, or addition of new wastewater discharges, an additional threat to habitat exists in this unit. Special management focused on agricultural and forestry BMPs, implementing highest levels of wastewater treatment practicable, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Unit 2 consists of 10.5 mi (16.9 km) of Upper Fishing Creek in Warren County. This unit extends from SR1118 (No Bottom Drive) downstream to NC58. The riparian land adjacent to the unit is primarily privately owned (94 percent) with several conservation parcels or easements (6 percent). This unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land or are discharged into the waters, causing excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen. Special management focused on agricultural and forestry BMPs, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Unit 3 consists of 2 miles (3.2 km) of Bens Creek in Warren County, North Carolina. The designated area begins approximately one mile upstream and ends approximately one mile downstream of SR1509 (Odell-Littleton Road). The addition of this unit is based on a 2019 observation of Neuse River waterdog provided by NCWRC. The riparian areas on either side of the river are privately owned. The unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins, reducing water quality for the species. Sources of these types of sediment and pollution are likely agricultural and silvicultural runoff. Special management focused on agricultural and forestry BMPs, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Revised Unit 4 consists of 82.8 miles (133.3 km) of lower Little Fishing Creek approximately 1.6 miles (2.6 km) upstream of SR1214 (Silvertown Rd) downstream to the confluence with Fishing Creek, and including the mainstem of Fishing Creek from the Warren/Halifax County line to the confluence with the Tar River in Edgecombe County. The revision of Unit 4 (previously Unit 3) adds 20 miles (32.3 km) of Fishing Creek based on a 2019 observation of Neuse River waterdog provided by NCWRC. The riparian land adjacent to the unit includes private land (86 percent), several conservation parcels (6 percent), and State game lands (8 percent). The unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land, or are discharged, into the waters, causing excessive growth of vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen. Special management focused on agricultural and forestry BMPs, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Unit 5 consists of an approximately 72.5 mi (116.8 km) segment of Sandy Creek downstream of SR 1451 (Leonard Road) to the confluence with the Tar River, including Red Bud Creek downstream of the Franklin/Nash county line to the confluence with Swift Creek. This unit is located in Warren, Franklin, Nash, and Edgecombe Counties. The riparian land adjacent to this unit includes private lands (97 percent), conservation parcels (1 percent), and State Game Lands (2 percent). This unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land or are discharged into the waters, causing excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen; there is one “impaired” stream reach totaling approximately 5 miles (8 km) in this unit. Special management focused on agricultural and forestry BMPs, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Revised Unit 6 (previously Unit 5) consists of 111 miles (179 km) of the Middle Tar River from upstream of Highway 401 downstream to the confluence with Fishing Creek, including Stony Creek below SR1300 (Boddies' Millpond Rd), downstream to the confluence with the Tar River. This unit is located in Franklin, Nash, and Edgecombe Counties. We revised Unit 6 (previously Unit 5) to add 11 miles (17.8 km) of the upper reach of the Tar River based on a 2019 observation of Neuse River waterdog provided by a permitted private consultant. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is nearly all private lands (99 percent), with less than 1 percent conservation parcels, local parks, and a research station. The unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus run off the land or are discharged into the waters, causing too much growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation and leading to extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen. As a result, there are six impaired stream reaches totaling approximately 32 miles in the unit. Expansion or addition of new wastewater discharges are also a threat to habitat in this unit. Special
Unit 7 consists of approximately 59.9 mi (96.3 km) in the Lower Tar River Subbasin from the confluence with Fishing Creek downstream to the confluence with Barber Creek near SR1533 (Port Terminal Road). This includes portions of Town Creek below NC111 to the confluence with the Tar River, Otter Creek below SR1251 to the confluence with the Tar River, and Tyson Creek below SR1258 to the confluence with the Tar River. This unit is located in Edgecombe and Pitt Counties. The riparian land adjacent to this unit consists of private land (97 percent), conservation parcels (2.5 percent), and State Game Lands (0.5 percent). This unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins, reducing water quality for the species. Special management focused on use of agricultural and forestry BMPs, implementation of highest levels of treatment of wastewater practicable, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Unit 8 consists of approximately 43.9 mi (70.6 km) of the Eno River from NC86 downstream to the inundated portion of Falls Lake in Orange and Durham Counties. The riparian land adjacent to this unit includes private lands (61 percent), State Park Lands (25 percent), local government conservation parcels (12 percent), and State Game Lands (2 percent). This unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Large quantities of nutrients (especially nitrogen) contributed by fertilizers and animal waste washed from lawns, urban developed areas, farm fields, and animal operations are impacting aquatic ecosystems in this unit. More than 300 permitted point-source sites discharge wastewater into streams and rivers in the basin. Development is also impacting areas along the Upper Neuse River. Special management considerations in this unit include using the highest available wastewater treatment technologies, retrofitting stormwater systems, eliminating direct stormwater discharges, increasing open space, maintaining connected riparian corridors, and treating invasive species (like hydrilla).
Unit 9 is a 15.2-mi (24.5-km) segment of the Flat River from SR1739 (Harris Mill Road) downstream to the inundated portion of Falls Lake, located in Person and Durham Counties. The riparian land adjacent to this unit consists of some private land (49 percent) and extensive conservation parcels (51 percent), including demonstration forest, recreation areas, and State Game Lands. This unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Large quantities of nutrients (especially nitrogen) contributed by fertilizers and animal waste washed from lawns, urban developed areas, farm fields, and animal operations are impacting aquatic ecosystems in this unit. Permitted point-source sites discharge wastewater into streams and rivers in the basin. Development is also impacting areas in the Upper Neuse River basin, including the Flat River. Special management considerations in this unit include using the highest available wastewater treatment technologies, retrofitting stormwater systems, eliminating direct stormwater discharges, increasing open space, maintaining connected riparian corridors, and treating invasive species (like hydrilla).
Revised Unit 10 consists of 30.8 miles (49.6 km) of Middle Creek from Southeast Regional Park downstream to the confluence with Swift Creek in Wake and Johnston Counties, North Carolina. We revised Unit 10 to add 23.2 miles (37.4 km) of Middle Creek based on two 2018 observations of Neuse River waterdog provided by NCWRC. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is predominantly privately owned (91 percent) with a few conservation parcels, including the local park (9 percent). The unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Large quantities of nutrients (especially nitrogen) contributed by fertilizers and animal waste washed from lawns, urban developed areas, and farm fields are impacting aquatic ecosystems in this unit. Several hundred permitted point-source sites discharge wastewater into streams and rivers in the basin. Development is also impacting areas in Middle Creek. Special management focused on use of agricultural and forestry BMPs, implementation of highest levels of treatment of wastewater practicable, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Unit 11 is a 24-mi (38.6-km) stretch of Swift Creek from NC42 downstream to the confluence with the Neuse River, located in Johnston County. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is entirely privately owned. This unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Large quantities of nutrients (especially nitrogen) contributed by fertilizers and animal waste washed from lawns, urban developed areas, farm fields, and animal operations are impacting aquatic ecosystems in this unit. Several hundred permitted point-source sites discharge wastewater into streams and rivers in the basin. Development is also impacting areas throughout Swift Creek. Special management considerations in this unit include using the highest available wastewater treatment technologies, retrofitting stormwater systems, eliminating direct stormwater discharges, increasing open space, and maintaining connected riparian corridors.
Unit 12 is a 90.8-mi (146.1-km) segment of the Little River from near NC96 downstream to the confluence with the Neuse River, including Buffalo Creek from NC39 to the confluence with Little River, located in Franklin, Wake, Johnston, and Wayne Counties. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is predominantly privately owned (90 percent) with some (10 percent) local municipal conservation parcels (Little River Reservoir). This unit contains all
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Four stream reaches totaling approximately 17 miles are impaired in the Little River. The designation of impairment is based primarily on low benthic-macroinvertebrate assessment scores, low pH, and low dissolved oxygen. There are 32 non-major and no major NPDES discharges in this unit. Special management considerations in this unit include retrofitting stormwater systems, eliminating direct stormwater discharges, increasing and protecting existing open space, and maintaining connected riparian corridors.
Unit 13 is a 20.8-mi (33.5-km) segment of Mill Creek from upstream of US701 downstream to the confluence with the Neuse River located in Johnston and Wayne Counties. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is predominantly privately owned (95 percent) with some conservation parcels (5 percent). This unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins, reducing water quality for the species. Special management focused on use of agricultural and forestry BMPs, implementation of highest levels of treatment of wastewater practicable, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Unit 14 is a 43.2-mi (69.5-km) segment of the Middle Neuse River from the confluence with Mill Creek downstream to the Wayne/Lenoir County line, located in Wayne County. The riparian land adjacent to this unit includes privately owned land (92 percent), conservation parcels (0.95 percent), State Park land (7 percent), and the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base (0.05 percent). The 2 miles of river segment located on the land owned by the Air Force Base is exempt from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Exemptions, below). This unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Large quantities of nutrients (especially nitrogen) contributed by fertilizers and animal waste washed from lawns, urban developed areas, farm fields, and animal operations are impacting aquatic ecosystems in this unit. More than 300 permitted point-source sites discharge wastewater into streams and rivers in the basin. Development is also impacting areas along the Middle Neuse River. Special management focused on use of agricultural and forestry BMPs, implementation of highest levels of treatment of wastewater practicable, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Unit 15 is an approximately 114.8-mi (184.8-km) reach, including Contentnea Creek from NC581 downstream to its confluence with the Neuse River, Nahunta Swamp from the Wayne/Greene County line to the confluence with Contentnea Creek, and the Neuse River from the confluence with Contentnea Creek to the confluence with Pinetree Creek, located in Greene, Wilson, Wayne, Lenoir, Pitt, and Craven Counties. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is nearly all privately owned land (99 percent), with <1 percent conservation parcels. This unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required within this unit to address a variety of threats. Two stream reaches totaling approximately 21 miles are impaired in Contentnea Creek, with 55 impaired stream miles in the entire unit. The designation of impairment is based primarily on low benthic-macroinvertebrate assessment scores, low pH, and low dissolved oxygen. There are 9 major and 195 non-major NPDES discharges in this unit. Special management considerations in this unit include retrofitting stormwater systems, eliminating direct stormwater discharges, increasing and protecting existing open space, and maintaining connected riparian corridors.
Unit 16 is a 10.3-mi (16.5-km) reach of Swift Creek from SR1931 (Beaver Camp Rd) downstream to SR1440 (Streets Ferry Rd) located in Craven County. The riparian land adjacent to this unit is nearly all privately owned (99 percent) with some conservation parcels (1 percent). This unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the creek and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins, reducing water quality for the species. Special management focused on use of agricultural and forestry BMPs, implementation of highest levels of treatment of wastewater practicable, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Revised Unit 17 consists of 32.5 miles (52.4 km) of Beaver Creek from SR1316 (McDaniel Fork Rd) to the confluence with the Trent River, and Trent River from the confluence with Poplar Branch downstream to the SR1121 (Oak Grove Rd) crossing at the Marine Corps Cherry Point property, in Jones County. This unit was decreased to not include land owned by the Marine Corps at its Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point Oak Grove Outlying Landing Field. The base's integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) includes implementing ecosystem management practices that support the conservation and management of at-risk herpetofauna species, including Neuse River waterdog, known to occur at MCAS Cherry Point (Tetra Tech 2012, p. C-10). The riparian land adjacent to this unit is privately owned. This unit contains all of the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the river and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins, reducing water quality for the species. Special management focused on use of agricultural and forestry BMPs, implementation of highest levels of treatment of wastewater practicable, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Unit 18 consists of 2 miles (3.2 km) of Tuckahoe Swamp in Jones County, North Carolina. The designated area
Special management considerations or protection may be required to address excess sediment and pollutants that enter the river and serve as indicators of other forms of pollution such as bacteria and toxins, reducing water quality for the species. Special management focused on use of agricultural and forestry BMPs, implementation of highest levels of treatment of wastewater practicable, maintenance of forested buffers, and connection of protected riparian corridors will benefit habitat for the species in this unit.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species.
We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
As a result of section 7 consultation, we generally document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
We define “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in several instances, including where we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that may be affected, and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that result in a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of the Carolina madtom or Neuse River waterdog. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section 7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would alter the minimum flow or the existing flow regime. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, impoundment, channelization, water diversion, water withdrawal, and hydropower generation. These activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for the growth and reproduction of the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog by decreasing or altering flows to levels that would adversely affect the species' abilities to complete their life cycles.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry or temperature. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, release of chemicals (including pharmaceuticals, metals, and salts), biological pollutants, or heated effluents into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (non-point source). These activities could alter water conditions to levels that are beyond the tolerances of Carolina madtoms and Neuse River waterdogs and result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals and their life cycles.
(3) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition within the stream channel. Such activities could
(4) Actions that would significantly increase the filamentous algal community within the stream channel. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, release of nutrients into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (non-point source). These activities can result in excessive filamentous algae filling streams and reducing habitat for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog, degrading water quality during algal decay, and decreasing oxygen levels at night from algal respiration to levels below the tolerances of the fish or amphibian.
(5) Actions that would significantly alter channel morphology or geometry. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, channelization, impoundment, road and bridge construction, mining, dredging, and destruction of riparian vegetation. These activities may lead to changes in water flows and levels that would degrade or eliminate the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog and/or their habitats. These actions can also lead to increased sedimentation and degradation in water quality to levels that are beyond the tolerances of the Carolina madtom or Neuse River waterdog.
(6) Actions that result in the introduction, spread, or augmentation of nonnative aquatic species in occupied stream segments, or in stream segments that are hydrologically connected to occupied stream segments, even if those segments are occasionally intermittent, or introduction of other species that compete with or prey on the Carolina madtom or Neuse River waterdog. Possible actions could include, but are not limited to, stocking of nonnative fishes or other related actions. These activities can introduce parasites or disease to fish and amphibians; result in direct predation; or affect the growth, reproduction, and survival of madtoms and waterdogs.
Finally, we note that for any of the six categories of actions outlined above, we and the relevant Federal agency may find that the agency's anticipated actions affecting critical habitat may be appropriate to consider programmatically in section 7 consultation. Programmatic consultations can be an efficient method for streamlining the consultation process, addressing an agency's multiple similar, frequently occurring, or routine actions expected to be implemented in a given geographic area. Programmatic section 7 consultation can also be conducted for an agency's proposed program, plan, policy, or regulation that provides a framework for future proposed actions. We are committed to responding to any agency's request for a programmatic consultation, when appropriate and subject to the approval of the Service Director, as a means to streamline the regulatory process and avoid time-consuming and inefficient multiple individual consultations.
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) required each military installation that includes land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.
We consult with the military on the development and implementation of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs developed by military installations located within the ranges of the critical habitat designations for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog to determine if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are Department of Defense (DoD) lands with completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the critical habitat designation for the Neuse River waterdog.
We identified two areas within the critical habitat designation that consists of DoD lands with a completed, Service-approved INRMP. They are the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base (SJAFB), which is located on 3,220 acres in Goldsboro, North Carolina, and the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Oak Grove Outlying Landing Field (MCAS Cherry Point OLF), which is located near Pollocksville, in Jones County, North Carolina.
SJAFB is federally owned land that is managed by the Air Force and is subject to all Federal laws and regulations. The SJAFB INRMP was updated in September 2020, covers fiscal years 2021-2026, and serves as the principal management plan governing all natural resource activities on the installation. Among the goals and objectives listed in the INRMP is prohibiting the introduction of exotic species, the preparation of a fish and wildlife management plan, the enforcement of game laws, the conservation of wildlife and migratory waterfowl, licenses and permits, regulating the use of chemical toxicants for controlling nuisance species, the protection of endangered and threatened species, and allowing public access to military property.
Management actions that benefit the Neuse River waterdog include: Analyze the adequacy of existing stormwater facilities and BMPs; collect effluent data from each drainage basin within the context of an ecosystem goal for surface and ground water discharges from SJAFB to make it easier to evaluate the scientific, ecological, and economic value of current and proposed BMPs;
Two miles (3.2 km) of Unit 14 (NR5c—Middle Neuse River) for the Neuse River waterdog are located within the area covered by this INRMP. Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified streams are subject to the SJAFB INRMP and that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to the Neuse River waterdog. Therefore, streams within this installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including approximately 2 river mi (3.2 km) of habitat in the Neuse River waterdog's critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
For the MCAS Cherry Point OLF, Unit 17 (Trent River) was decreased to exempt land owned by the Marine Corps. The base's INRMP includes a program for at-risk herpetofauna including establishment of a monitoring program, conducting surveys in high-probability habitat for new occurrences, collection of GIS location data, and implementation of ecosystem management practices that support the conservation and management of at-risk herpetofauna species, including the Neuse River waterdog, known to occur at MCAS Cherry Point (Tetra Tech 2012, p. C-10). Additional protection for at-risk herpetofauna known to occur at MCAS Cherry Point would be provided through NEPA-initiated individual project review and agency consultation, as necessary (Tetra Tech 2012, p. C-10). Based on these considerations, and in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that 1.1 miles (2 km) of the Trent River is subject to the MCAS Cherry Point OLF INRMP and that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to the Neuse River waterdog. Therefore, streams within this installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including 1.1 miles (2 km) of stream habitat in the Neuse River waterdog's critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he or she determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he or she determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.
We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant impacts. In this final rule, we have not considered any areas for exclusion from critical habitat.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To consider economic impacts of a designation, we prepared an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis which, together with our narrative and interpretation of effects, constitute our final economic analysis (FEA) of the critical habitat designation and related factors (IEc 2018, entire). The analysis, dated September 14, 2018, was made available for public review from May 22, 2019, through July 22, 2019 (84 FR 23644). The DEA addressed probable economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog. Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. Additional information relevant to the probable incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog is summarized below.
The critical habitat designation for the Neuse River waterdog totals approximately 779 river miles (1,254 river km), all of which are currently occupied by the species. In these areas, any actions that may affect the species or its habitat would likely also affect critical habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be required to address the adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the species. Therefore, the only additional costs that are expected in all of the critical habitat designation are administrative costs, due to the fact that this additional analysis will require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service.
The critical habitat designation for the Carolina madtom totals approximately 257 river miles (414 river km), most of which is currently occupied by the species, but with two unoccupied units. In the occupied areas, any actions that may affect the species or its habitat would likely also affect critical habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be required to address the adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the species. Therefore, the only additional costs that are expected in the occupied critical habitat designation are administrative costs, due to the fact that this additional analysis will require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service. Two of the Carolina madtom critical habitat units (Unit 4: NR1 and Unit 7: TR1) are unoccupied. One of these units (NR1) overlaps entirely with river miles designated as critical habitat for the Neuse River waterdog. The second unoccupied unit (TR1) overlaps partially with Neuse River waterdog critical habitat, but includes approximately 7 river miles that do not overlap (representing approximately 3 percent of the Carolina madtom's designated critical habitat). However, these river miles are located in a remote area where future section 7 consultations are not anticipated.
Our analysis shows that these costs would not reach the threshold of “significant” under E.O. 12866 (IEc 2018, entire). For the critical habitat designations for both species, we anticipate a maximum of 115 section 7 consultations annually at a total incremental cost of approximately $270,000 per year.
As discussed above, the Service considered the economic impacts of the critical habitat designation, and the
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (see Exemptions, above) may not cover all DoD lands or areas that pose potential national-security concerns (
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national security. We consider a number of factors including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as habitat conservation plans (HCPs), safe harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with assurances, or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the existence of tribal conservation plans and partnerships, and consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States with Tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the designation.
In preparing this final rule, we determined that there are currently no permitted conservation plans or other non-permitted conservation agreements or partnerships for the Carolina madtom or Neuse River waterdog, and the final critical habitat designations do not include any Tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on Tribal lands, partnerships, or permitted or non-permitted plans or agreements from this critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on other relevant impacts.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate only the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this E.O. that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared to not taking the regulatory action under consideration. The economic analysis finds that none of these criteria is relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated with Carolina madtom or Neuse River waterdog conservation activities within critical habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply, nor does critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments because most of the lands adjacent to the streams being designated as critical habitat are owned by private landowners. These entities do not fit the definition of “small governmental jurisdiction.” The 148 miles (238 km) for the Neuse River waterdog and 91 miles (146 km) for the Carolina madtom of riparian habitat owned by Federal, State, or local governments that we are designating as critical habitat in this rule are either lands managed for conservation or lands already developed. Consequently, we do not believe that the critical habitat designation will significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for the Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog in a takings implications assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A takings implications assessment concludes that the designations of critical habitat for Carolina madtom and Neuse River waterdog do not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of the critical habitat designation with, the appropriate State resource agencies. We did not receive comments from the States. From a federalism perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) will be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this rule identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The designated areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and the rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if desired.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act in connection with listing species and designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. We have identified no Tribal interests that will be affected by this rule.
A complete list of references cited in this rule is available on the internet at
The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
The additions read as set forth below.
(h) * * *
(f) Neuse River waterdog (
(1)
(i) Import or export, as set forth at § 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife.
(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity, as set forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife.
(2)
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under § 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4) for endangered wildlife.
(iii) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b).
(iv) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by:
(A) Species restoration efforts by State wildlife agencies, including collection of broodstock, tissue collection for genetic analysis, captive propagation, and subsequent stocking into currently occupied and unoccupied areas within the historical range of the species, and follow-up monitoring.
(B) Channel restoration projects that create natural, physically stable, ecologically functioning streams (or stream and wetland systems) that are reconnected with their groundwater aquifers. These projects can be accomplished using a variety of methods, but the desired outcome is a natural channel with low shear stress (force of water moving against the channel); bank heights that enable reconnection to the floodplain; a reconnection of surface and groundwater systems, resulting in perennial flows in the channel; riffles and pools composed of existing soil, rock, and wood instead of large imported materials; low compaction of soils within adjacent riparian areas; and inclusion of riparian wetlands. Second- to third-order, headwater streams reconstructed in this way offer suitable habitats for the Neuse River waterdog and contain stable channel features, such as pools, glides, runs, and riffles, which could be used by the species for spawning, rearing, growth, feeding, migration, and other normal behaviors. Prior to restoration action, surveys to determine presence of Neuse River waterdog must be performed, and if located, waterdogs must be relocated prior to project implementation.
(C) Bank stabilization projects that use bioengineering methods to replace pre-existing, bare, eroding stream banks with vegetated, stable stream banks, thereby reducing bank erosion and instream sedimentation and improving habitat conditions for the species. Following these bioengineering methods, stream banks may be stabilized using native species live stakes (live, vegetative cuttings inserted or tamped into the ground in a manner that allows the stake to take root and grow), native species live fascines (live branch cuttings, usually willows, bound together into long, cigar shaped bundles), or native species brush layering (cuttings or branches of easily rooted tree species layered between successive lifts of soil fill). Native species vegetation includes woody and herbaceous species appropriate for the region and habitat conditions. These methods will not include the sole use of quarried rock (rip-rap) or the use of rock baskets or gabion structures.
(D) Forestry-related activities, including silvicultural practices, forest management work, and fire control tactics, that implement State-approved best management practices. In order for this exception to apply to forestry-related activities, these best management practices must achieve all of the following:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(v) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
The additions read as follows.
(d)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Craven, Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, Greene, Halifax, Johnston, Jones, Lenoir, Nash, Orange, Person, Pitt, Wake, Warren, Wayne, and Wilson Counties, North Carolina, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Neuse River waterdog consist of the following components:
(i) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats, characterized by geomorphically stable stream channels and banks (
(ii) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (which includes the severity, frequency, duration, and seasonality of discharge over time), necessary to maintain instream habitats where the species is found and to maintain connectivity of streams with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and sediment for maintenance of the waterdog's habitat, food availability, and ample oxygenated flow for spawning and nesting habitat.
(iii) Water quality (including, but not limited to, conductivity, hardness, turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, heavy metals, and chemical constituents) necessary to sustain natural physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.
(iv) Invertebrate and fish prey items, which are typically hellgrammites, crayfish, mayflies, earthworms, snails, beetles, centipedes, slugs, and small fish.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on July 9, 2021.
(4)
(5)
(6) Unit 1: TAR1-Upper Tar River, Granville County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 12.3 river miles (19.8 river kilometers) of the Upper Tar River from approximately SR1004 (Old NC 75) downstream to SR1622 (Cannady's Mill Road). Unit 1 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
(7) Unit 2: TAR2-Upper Fishing Creek, Warren County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 10.5 miles (17 kilometers) of Upper Fishing Creek from SR1118 (No Bottom Drive) downstream to NC58. Unit 2 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
(8) Unit 3: TAR3-Bens Creek, Warren County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 2 miles (3.2 km) of Bens Creek beginning approximately one mile upstream and ending approximately one mile downstream of SR1509 (Odell-Littleton Road). Unit 3 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
(9) Unit 4: TAR4a-Fishing Creek Subbasin, Edgecombe, Halifax, Nash, and Warren Counties, North Carolina; Unit 5: TAR4b-Sandy/Swift Creek, Edgecombe, Franklin, Nash, and Warren Counties, North Carolina; Unit 6: TAR4c-Middle Tar River Subbasin, Edgecombe, Franklin, and Nash Counties, North Carolina; and Unit 7: TAR4d-Lower Tar River Subbasin, Edgecombe and Pitt Counties, North Carolina.
(i) Units 4, 5, 6, and 7 include stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Unit 4 consists of 82.8 miles (133.3 km) of lower Little Fishing Creek approximately 1.6 miles (2.6 km) upstream of SR1214 (Silvertown Rd) downstream to the confluence with Fishing Creek, and including the mainstem of Fishing Creek from the Warren/Halifax County line to the confluence with the Tar River in Edgecombe County.
(iii) Unit 5 consists of 72.5 miles (116.8 kilometers) of Sandy Creek downstream of SR 1451 (Leonard Road) to the confluence with the Tar River, including Red Bud Creek downstream of the Franklin/Nash county line to the confluence with Swift Creek.
(iv) Unit 6 consists of 111 miles (179 kilometers) of the Middle Tar River from upstream of Highway 401 downstream to the confluence with Fishing Creek, including Stony Creek below SR1300 (Boddies' Millpond Rd), downstream to the confluence with the Tar River.
(v) Unit 7 consists of 59.9 miles (96.3 kilometers) in the Lower Tar River Subbasin from the confluence with Fishing Creek downstream to the confluence with Barber Creek near SR1533 (Port Terminal Road). This unit includes portions of Town Creek below NC111 to the confluence with the Tar River, Otter Creek below SR1251 to the confluence with the Tar River, and Tyson Creek below SR1258 to the confluence with the Tar River.
(vi) Map of Units 4, 5, 6, and 7 follows:
(10) Unit 8: NR1-Eno River, Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 43.9 miles (70.6 kilometers) of the Eno River from NC86 downstream to the inundated portion of Falls Lake. Unit 8 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:
(11) Unit 9: NR2-Flat River, Durham and Person Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 15.2 miles (24.5 kilometers) of the Flat River from SR1739 (Harris Mill Road) downstream to the inundated portion of Falls Lake. Unit 9 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 9 follows:
(12) Unit 10: NR3-Middle Creek, Johnston and Wake Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 30.8 miles (49.6 km) of Middle Creek from Southeast Regional Park downstream to the confluence with Swift Creek. Unit 10 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 10 follows:
(13) Unit 11: NR4-Swift Creek, Johnston County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 24 miles (38.6 kilometers) of Swift Creek from NC42 downstream to the confluence with the Neuse River. Unit 11 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 11 follows:
(14) Unit 12: NR5a-Little River, Franklin, Johnston, Wake, and Wayne Counties, North Carolina; Unit 13: NR5b-Mill Creek, Johnston and Wayne Counties, North Carolina; and Unit 14: NR5c-Middle Neuse River, Wayne County, North Carolina.
(i) Units 12, 13, and 14 include stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Unit 12 consists of 90.8 miles (146.1 kilometers) of the Little River from near NC96 in Wake County downstream to the confluence with the Neuse River, including Buffalo Creek from NC39 to the confluence with the Little River.
(iii) Unit 13 consists of 20.8 miles (33.5 kilometers) of Mill Creek from upstream of US701 downstream to the confluence with the Neuse River.
(iv) Unit 14 consists of 43.2 miles (69.5 kilometers) of the Middle Neuse River from the confluence with Mill Creek downstream to the Wayne/Lenoir County line.
(v) Map of Units 12, 13, and 14 follows:
(15) Unit 15: NR6-Contentnea Creek/Lower Neuse River Subbasin, Craven, Greene, Lenoir, Pitt, Wayne, and Wilson Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 114.8 miles (184.8 kilometers) of Contentnea Creek from NC581 downstream to its confluence with the Neuse River, Nahunta Swamp from the Wayne/Greene County line to the confluence with Contentnea Creek, and the Neuse River from the confluence with Contentnea Creek to the confluence with Pinetree Creek. Unit 15 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 15 follows:
(16) Unit 16: NR7-Swift Creek (Lower Neuse), Craven County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 10.3 miles (16.5 rier kilometers) of Swift Creek from SR1931 (Beaver Camp Rd) downstream to SR1440 (Streets Ferry Rd). Unit 16 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 16 follows:
(17) Unit 17: TR1-Trent River, Jones County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 32.5 miles (52.4 kilometers) of Beaver Creek from SR1316 (McDaniel Fork Rd) to the confluence with the Trent River, and Trent River from the confluence with Poplar Branch downstream to SR1121 (Oak Grove Rd) crossing at the Marine Corps Cherry Point property. Unit 17 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 17 follows:
(18) Unit 18: TR2-Tuckahoe Swamp, Jones County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 2 miles (3.2 km) of Tuckahoe Swamp in Jones County, North Carolina. Unit 18 begins upstream of SR1142 (Weyerhaeuser Road) to the confluence with the Trent River. Unit 18 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 18 follows:
(e)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, Halifax, Johnston, Jones, Nash, Orange, Vance, Warren, and Wilson Counties, North Carolina, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Carolina madtom consist of the following components:
(i) Suitable substrates and connected instream habitats, characterized by geomorphically stable stream channels and banks (
(ii) Adequate flows, or a hydrologic flow regime (which includes the severity, frequency, duration, and seasonality of discharge over time), necessary to maintain instream habitats where the species is found and to maintain connectivity of streams with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and sediment for maintenance of the fish's habitat, food availability, and ample oxygenated flow for spawning and nesting habitat.
(iii) Water quality (including, but not limited to, conductivity, hardness, turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, heavy metals, and chemical constituents) necessary to sustain natural physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.
(iv) Aquatic macroinvertebrate prey items, which are typically dominated by larval midges, mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies, and beetle larvae.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on July 9, 2021.
(4)
(5)
(6) Unit 1: TAR1-Upper Tar River, Franklin, Granville, and Vance Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 26 river miles (42 river kilometers) of the Upper Tar River from the confluence with Sand Creek to the confluence with Sycamore Creek. Unit 1 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
(7) Unit 2: TAR2-Sandy/Swift Creek, Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Nash, Vance, and Warren Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 66 river miles (106 river kilometers) of Sandy and Swift Creeks, located downstream from NC561 to the confluence with the Tar River. Unit 2 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
(8) Unit 3: TAR3-Fishing Creek Subbasin, Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Nash, and Warren Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 86 river miles (138 river kilometers) of Fishing Creek from the confluence with Hogpen Branch to the confluence with the Tar River, and Little Fishing Creek from Medoc Mountain Road (SR1002) to the confluence with Fishing Creek. Unit 3 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
(9) Unit 4: NR1-Upper Neuse River Subbasin (Eno River), Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 20 river miles (32 river kilometers) of the Upper Neuse River extending from Eno River State Park downstream of NC70 to the confluence with Cabin Creek near Falls Lake impoundment. Unit 4 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
(10) Unit 5: NR2-Little River, Johnston County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 28 river miles (45 river kilometers) of the Upper and Lower Little River from NC42 to the Johnston/Wayne County line. Unit 5 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:
(11) Unit 6: NR3-Contentnea Creek, Wilson County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 15 river miles (24 river kilometers) of Contentnea Creek from Buckhorn Reservoir to Wiggins Mill Reservoir. Unit 6 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:
(12) Unit 7: TR1-Trent River, Jones County, North Carolina.
(i) This unit consists of 15 river miles (24 river kilometers) of the Trent River between the confluence with Cypress Creek and Beaver Creek. Unit 7 includes stream habitat up to bankfull height.
(ii) Map of Unit 7 follows: