Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
The U.S. Codex Office
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Community Living Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Parole Commission
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Veterans Employment and Training Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2002-08-16 for certain Eurocopter France SA341G, SA342J, and SA-360C helicopters. AD 2002-08-16 required removing certain main rotor head torsion tie bars (tie bars) from service and revising the limitations section of the existing maintenance manual for your helicopter by adding life limits for certain other tie bars. This AD was prompted by the determination that another part-numbered tie bar is affected by the same unsafe condition. This AD continues to require removing certain tie bars from service and establishing a life limit for certain other tie bars. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 10, 2021.
For Eurocopter service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 North Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket at
Hal Jensen, Aerospace Engineer, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 267-9167; email
The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2002-08-16 (67 FR 19640, April 23, 2002) (AD 2002-08-16). AD 2002-08-16 applied to Eurocopter France Model SA341G, SA342J, and SA-360C helicopters with a tie bar part number (P/N) 341A31-4904-00, -01, -02, -03; 341A31-4933-00, -01; or 360A31-1097-02, -03, installed. The SNPRM published in the
The SNPRM was prompted by a significant amount of time that had elapsed since issuance of the NPRM that required the FAA to reopen the comment period to allow the public a chance to comment on the proposed actions. Additional review also revealed necessary changes to address the unsafe condition. The SNPRM proposed to clarify that the compliance times of requirements continued from AD 2002-08-16 are effective after the effective date of AD 2002-08-16, clarify instances of life limits specified in calendar time that they are since initial installation of the tie bar on any helicopter, clarify one instance of a life limit that it is total hours time-in-service (TIS) or calendar time—whichever occurs first, and add parts installation prohibitions. The SNPRM also updated the AD format. As a result, paragraph identifiers changed, editorial changes were made to meet current publishing requirements, and the proposed requirements were revised by removing unnecessary information.
The NPRM was prompted by DGAC AD 2001-587-041(A) R2, dated January 8, 2003 (DGAC AD 2001-587-041(A) R2), issued by the DGAC, which was the Technical Agent for France, to correct an unsafe condition for Model SA 341/342 helicopters. The DGAC advised of another affected tie-bar P/N 704A33-633-270 and additional flight restrictions for the newly-affected tie bar. This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of a tie bar and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Accordingly, DGAC AD 2001-587-041(A) R2, along with DGAC AD 2001-588-047(A) R1, dated December 26, 2001 (DGAC AD 2001-588-047(A) R1), for Model SA 360 helicopters, require removing certain part-numbered tie bars from service and a life limit for certain other part-numbered tie bars.
The FAA received no comments on the SNPRM or on the determination of the costs.
These helicopters have been approved by the European Union Aviation Safety
The FAA reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 01.29, Revision 0, dated December 4, 2002, and Eurocopter Alert Telex No. 01.39, Revision 1, dated December 11, 2001. This service information specifies removing certain part-numbered tie bars at specified life limits.
For an affected tie bar that has accumulated 7 or more years since initial installation on any helicopter, DGAC AD 2001-587-041(A) R2 requires removing the tie bar before next flight, whereas this AD allows removal within 5 hours TIS instead.
For an affected tie bar that has accumulated 15 or more years since initial installation on any helicopter, DGAC AD 2001-588-047(A) R1 requires removing the tie bar before next flight, whereas this AD does not. For an affected tie bar that has accumulated 7 or more years since initial installation on any helicopter, DGAC AD 2001-588-047(A) R1 requires removing the tie bar before next flight, whereas this AD allows removal within 5 hours TIS instead. DGAC AD 2001-588-047(A) R1 allows a ferry flight not to exceed 5 hours to return the helicopter to a maintenance base, where as special flight permits are prohibited by this AD.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 29 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.
Replacing a tie bar takes about 1.5 work-hours and parts cost about $9,579 for an estimated cost of $9,707 per tie bar.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 10, 2021.
This AD replaces AD 2002-08-16, Amendment 39-12725 (67 FR 19640, April 23, 2002) (AD 2002-08-16).
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters (type certificate previously held by Eurocopter France) Model SA341G and SA342J and Eurocopter France Model SA-360C helicopters, certificated in any category, with a main rotor head torsion tie bar (tie bar), part number (P/N) 341A31-4904-00, -01, -02, -03; 341A31-4933-00, -01; 360A31-1097-02, -03; or 704A33-633-270, installed.
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220, Main Rotor Head.
This AD was prompted by an accident caused by the failure of a tie bar. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of a tie bar, which if not addressed, could result in loss of a main rotor blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For tie bar P/N 341A31-4904-00, -01, -02, and -03; and 360A31-1097-02 and -03, before further flight after May 8, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-08-16), remove the tie bar from service.
(2) For each tie bar P/N 341A31-4933-00 and -01:
(i) Before further flight after May 8, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-08-16), determine the date of initial installation on any helicopter, or if the date of initial installation cannot be determined, use the date of manufacture.
(A) For a tie bar that has accumulated 7 or more years since initial installation on any helicopter, within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS) after May 8, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-08-16), remove the tie bar from service.
(B) For a tie bar manufactured before 1995 that has accumulated less than 7 years since initial installation on any helicopter, before accumulating 7 years since initial installation on any helicopter, before accumulating 300 total hours TIS, or within 1 year after May 8, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-08-16), whichever occurs first, remove the tie bar from service.
(C) For a tie bar manufactured in 1995 or later that has accumulated less than 7 years since initial installation on any helicopter, before accumulating 7 years since initial installation on any helicopter, before accumulating 600 total hours TIS, or within 2 years after May 8, 2002 (the effective date
(ii) Thereafter following paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD, remove any tie bar P/N 341A31-4933-00 and -01 from service as follows:
(A) For a tie bar manufactured before 1995, remove the tie bar from service before accumulating 300 total hours TIS or 1 year since initial installation on any helicopter, whichever occurs first, and
(B) For a tie bar manufactured in 1995 or later, remove the tie bar from service before accumulating 600 total hours TIS or 2 years since initial installation on any helicopter, whichever occurs first.
(3) For tie bar P/N 704A33-633-270:
(i) Before further flight after the effective date of this AD, determine the date of initial installation on any helicopter, or if the date of initial installation cannot be determined, use the date of manufacture.
(ii) If the tie bar has accumulated 600 or more total hours TIS or 2 or more years since initial installation on any helicopter, whichever occurs first, before further flight, remove the tie bar from service.
(iii) If the tie bar has accumulated less than 600 total hours TIS or 2 years since initial installation on any helicopter, whichever occurs first, remove the tie bar from service before accumulating 600 total hours TIS or 2 years since initial installation on any helicopter, whichever occurs first.
(iv) Thereafter following paragraph (g)(3)(ii) or (iii) of this AD, remove any tie bar P/N 704A33-633-270 from service before accumulating 600 total hours TIS or 2 years since initial installation on any helicopter, whichever occurs first.
(4) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install tie bar P/N 341A31-4904-00, -01, -02, or -03; or 360A31-1097-02 or -03, on any helicopter.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Hal Jensen, Aerospace Engineer, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 267-9167; email
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Generale De L'Aviation Civile (France) AD 2001-588-047(A) R1, dated December 26, 2001, and AD 2001-587-041(A) R2, dated January 8, 2003. You may view those ADs at
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding four entities to the Entity List. These four entities have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States and will be listed on the Entity List under the destination of Burma. This rule also amends the EAR by correcting the address of one entity, listed under Burma, on the Entity List.
This rule is effective July 6, 2021.
Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Email:
The Entity List (supplement no. 4 to part 744 of the EAR) identifies entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entities have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) impose additional license requirements on, and limit the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to listed entities. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the “License Review Policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant
The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and makes all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.
This rule is part of an ongoing effort by the United States Government to impose restrictions on Burmese entities that support the Burmese military as part of a broader response to the February 1, 2021 coup by the military, which overthrew Burma's democratically-elected government. On February 10, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14014, “Blocking Property With Respect to the Situation in Burma” (E.O. 14104), in which he declared a national emergency to address the threat posed to the United States by the situation in, and in relation to, Burma following the coup.
Since February 2021, BIS has taken several actions under the EAR to strengthen export controls on Burma. These include the publication of “Burma: Implementation of Sanctions” (86 FR 10011) on February 18, 2021; “Burma: Implementation of Sanctions” (86 FR 13173) on March 8, 2021; “Addition of Entities to the Entity List” (86 FR 13179) on March 8, 2021; and “Expansion of Certain End-Use and End-User Controls and Controls on Specific Activities of U.S. Persons; Corrections; and Burma Sanctions” (86 FR 18433) on April 9, 2021.
This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add four entities to the Entity
By making these Entity List additions, this final rule further strengthens export controls on Burma and addresses the foreign policy and national security concerns that formed the basis for the issuance of E.O. 14104. This rule also supports the United States Government's efforts to promote an immediate return to democracy in Burma. Specifically, BIS is adding the following four entities to the Entity List under the destination of Burma: Wanbao Mining, Ltd. and its two subsidiaries, Myanmar Wanbao Mining Copper, Ltd. and Myanmar Yang Tse Copper, Ltd.; and King Royal Technologies Co., Ltd. In particular, by adding Wanbao Mining, Ltd., Myanmar Wanbao Mining Copper, Ltd., and Myanmar Yang Tse Copper, Ltd. to the Entity List, this rule enhances the U.S. Government's efforts to ensure that items subject to the EAR are not available for copper mining operations by these three entities, which have revenue-sharing agreements with Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited (MEHL). MEHL provides revenue for Burma's Ministry of Defence, an entity responsible for the February 1, 2021 military coup. On March 8, 2021, BIS added MEHL and the Ministry of Defence to the Entity List.
Pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that the conduct of the above-described four entities raises sufficient concerns that prior review, via the imposition of a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR involving these four entities and the possible issuance of license denials or the possible imposition of license conditions on shipments to these entities, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR or otherwise protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.
For the four entities added to the Entity List in this final rule, BIS imposes a license requirement that applies to all items subject to the EAR. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List in this rule. BIS imposes a license review policy of a presumption of denial for these four entities. The acronym “a.k.a.,” which is an abbreviation of `also known as,' is used in entries on the Entity List to identify aliases, thereby assisting exporters, reexporters and transferors in identifying entities on the Entity List.
For the reasons described above, this final rule adds the following four entities to the Entity List and includes, where appropriate, aliases:
• King Royal Technologies Co., Ltd.;
• Myanmar Wanbao Mining Copper, Ltd.;
• Myanmar Yang Tse Copper, Ltd.;
• Wanbao Mining, Ltd.
This final rule implements a correction to one existing entry on the Entity List for an entity that was added to the Entity List under the destination of Burma on March 8, 2021 (86 FR 13180, March 8, 2021). Specifically, BIS is correcting the entry for Myanmar Economic Corporation by changing the address to refer to “Burma.”
Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on July 6, 2021, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR).
On August 13, 2018, the President 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). 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, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is 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
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, 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.
5. 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,
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 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
The additions and revision read as follows:
Office of General Counsel, HUD.
Final rule.
On November 10, 2020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD, or the Department) published an interim final rule that implemented Executive Order 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents.” This order required Federal agencies to publish regulations to codify processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents. HUD created new regulations that outlined HUD policy and procedures for issuing guidance documents. On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13992, “Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation” which, among other things, revoked Executive Order 13891. After considering the public comments HUD received in response to its interim final rule and given the revocation of Executive Order 13891, this final rule removes the regulations HUD created in January.
Effective August 5, 2021.
Aaron Santa Anna, Associate General Counsel, Office of Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone (202) 402-5300 (this is not a toll-free telephone number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
On October 9, 2019 (84 FR 55235), the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents.” E.O. 13891 recognized that the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559) (APA) exempts “interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure or practice,” except when required by statute, from the notice and comment requirements for rulemaking. (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). E.O. 13891 stated, however, that, in the view of the last administration, agencies have sometimes used this authority to issue guidance documents that regulate the public without following the notice and comment rulemaking procedures of the APA. As a result, E.O. 13891 required Federal agencies to issue regulations to codify processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents. Among other things, E.O. 13891 required that agency regulations establish procedures for modifying, withdrawing, and using guidance documents, including requiring notice and comment for significant guidance documents, and taking and responding to petitions from the public for withdrawal or modification of a particular guidance document.
In response to E.O. 13891, HUD published an interim final rule on November 10, 2020 (85 FR 71537) that established a new part 11 in title 24 of the CFR. The new part 11 required HUD to follow certain procedures in issuing guidance documents. These procedures included: Establishing a single agency website where the public can find all HUD guidance in effect; OMB review of significant guidance; public comment on significant guidance; and a procedure for the public to request withdrawal or modification of a guidance document. In issuing its interim final rule, HUD determined that good cause existed to omit advanced public comment because the rule was limited to internal HUD procedures and did not impose new requirements on members of the public. The rule took effect on December 10, 2020.
Although HUD determined that good cause existed to publish its interim final rule prior to soliciting public comment, HUD provided for a 60-day public comment period. In response to its interim final rule, HUD received seven public comments which were mostly critical of, or recommended significant changes to, the interim final rule. A summary of these comments and HUD's responses to them are provided in Section III of this document.
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued E.O. 13992, “Executive Order on Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation,” which among other things, revoked E.O. 13891. E.O. 13992 also directed agencies to promptly take steps to rescind any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies, or portions thereof that implemented or enforced the Executive Orders revoked. E.O. 13992 states, “It is the policy of [the] Administration to use available tools to confront the urgent challenges facing the Nation, including the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, economic recovery, racial justice, and climate change. To tackle these challenges effectively, executive departments and agencies (agencies) must be equipped with the flexibility to use robust regulatory action to address national priorities. This order revokes harmful policies and directives that threaten to frustrate the Federal Government's ability to confront these problems and empowers agencies to use appropriate regulatory tools to achieve these goals.”
Given the revocation of E.O. 13891, and after considering the public comments HUD received in response to the interim final rule, HUD has decided to remove 24 CFR part 11. In reaching this conclusion, HUD concluded that the interim final rule deprives HUD of necessary flexibility to determine when and how to best issue guidance documents based on particular facts and circumstances, and unduly restricts HUD's ability to provide timely guidance on which the public can confidently rely. Notwithstanding this determination, HUD takes the opportunity in this rule to respond to public comments received in response to its interim final rule.
The comment period for HUD's interim final rule closed on January 11, 2021. HUD received seven public comments from various housing policy and legal interest groups, a law firm, and two public housing agencies (PHAs). HUD appreciates the time that commenters took to review its interim final rule and provide helpful information and valuable comments and recommendations.
Most commenters opposed the interim final rule and urged HUD to withdraw or rescind the rule and “abandon” codification of 24 CFR part 11. Most commenters stated that HUD should encourage the facilitation and dissemination of guidance, particularly given the urgent need for federal response to current crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and lack of affordable housing, and housing discrimination. These commenters stated that the rule would make it more difficult for HUD to quickly respond to these crises and fulfill its mission of creating strong, sustainable, inclusive communities.
A majority of the commenters also thought that the rule would create confusion among HUD stakeholders and the public. Commenters stated that the interim final rule “would have a negative impact on the successful administration of HUD's programs,” and would “significantly delay each program office's ability to be responsive to emergencies and emerging questions and issues and increase the workload for HUD.” Commenters also warned that the burdens and delays imposed by the interim final rule would negatively impact the ability of stakeholders such as PHAs, tenants, and advocacy groups to carry out their respective missions and may subject their programs to litigation.
Two commenters generally supported the interim final rule but offered recommendations for significant changes, such as expanding it to provide the public an opportunity to request the issuance of new guidance or the reinstatement of rescinded guidance. One commenter recommended that HUD include an explicit judicial review
Commenters expressed concern with the review of HUD guidance by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and the need for HUD to receive and review public comments on significant guidance. One commenter stated that OIRA is a small office with a heavy workload that is slow to formally review proposed and final rules submitted by HUD. The commenter stated that adding the review of many HUD guidance documents to OIRA's workload would cause significant delays in the issuance of both HUD's guidance documents and its rules issued under the Administrative Procedure Act. Another commenter stated that “applying such procedures to sub-regulatory guidance creates unnecessary and burdensome bureaucracy.” Other commenters said that the review, approval, and signature process for significant guidance “would hamper [HUD's] ability to act nimbly to issue guidance on key issues.” Finally, one commenter noted that the rule would not only delay, but ultimately prevent, the dissemination of guidance.
Commenters also stated that allowing petitions to modify or rescind guidance documents and the requirement for HUD to respond to each petition in writing, would drain scarce agency resources and hamper HUD's ability to issue important guidance. One commenter stated that the process of permitting HUD to issue a coordinated response to similar petitions is insufficient to address delay issues. The commenter further said that HUD would be “doing the work” for petitioners with inadequate submissions “by laying out a roadmap and effectively crafting arguments for petitioners to have their petitions successfully adjudicated.” Another commenter added that the “petition mechanism will likely confuse funding recipients,” which in turn would create more work for HUD staff and delay day-to-day programmatic decision-making. The commenter also noted that “the interim final rule will strip authority from the career experts who normally develop guidance . . . and place day-to-day decisions directly into the hands of non-experts”.
Commenters stated that the interim final rule lacks clarity, uses ambiguous terms, and creates general implementation issues. Many commenters stated that the interim final rule does not provide clear definitions and does not clarify which types of communication are subject to the rule. For example, commenters noted that the interim final rule's definition of what constitutes “guidance” is vague and makes the scope of the rule unclear. One commenter noted that the definition of “guidance” could be read broadly enough to include “virtually all written communications HUD delivers to stakeholders.”
One commenter found the definition of guidance lacking and recommended that legal opinions directed to parties about circumstance-specific questions and Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs)
Commenters also stated that the definition of “significant guidance” is unclear, overly broad, and susceptible to variance. One commenter stated that terms used in the definition of “significant guidance,” such as “serious inconsistency” or “interference” with another agency, are so vague that “if [the interim final rule is] interpreted broadly, nearly every piece of guidance not explicitly exempted from being considered significant guidance will be subject to the burdensome OIRA review and public comment process.” The commenter also noted the lack of explanation for how economic impact analyses would be conducted for significant guidance, and the apparent lack of public access to such analyses.
Lastly, HUD agrees with public commenters that the definitions of “guidance” and “significant guidance” could be interpreted broadly and doing so would make issuing guidance challenging. HUD notes that the definition of “significant guidance” incorporated in the interim final rule mirrors the definition in E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) for “significant regulatory action” and includes “novel legal or policy issues” which challenges articulating a specific definition. Notwithstanding, the requirement that HUD provide an economic analysis for guidance that rises to the level of “significant regulatory action” creates additional challenges to the Department's ability to timely issue guidance and outweighs any benefit resulting from the interim final rule.
Commenters stated that the uncertainty created by the interim final rule would negatively affect HUD constituencies that routinely rely on HUD guidance, including tenants, advocates, owners, vulnerable populations, and PHAs. One commenter stated that HUD guidance is undermined by the provision noting that “the authority is nonbinding and unenforceable.” The commenter stated
One commenter stated that the interim final rule may adversely impact vulnerable populations and encourage discriminatory policies. For example, survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking would be left without access to certain remedies and procedures established under guidance (but not mentioned in statutes or regulations). According to the commenter, ignoring guidance on emergency transfers leaves “survivors without a clear path to obtaining an emergency transfer, leaving them in unsafe situations for longer periods of time.” The commenter also stated, by way of example, that “people with disabilities rely on HUD guidance to determine where they can live with their assistance or emotional support animals” and provide people with disabilities a “greater security when confronting housing discrimination.” A commenter further asserted that “by suggesting that PHAs or owners ignore HUD guidance, HUD encourages discriminatory policies against tenants with disabilities who need accommodations.”
Several commenters stated that the process for public petition would reduce reliance on guidance documents because it permits repeated requests for recission of certain documents, and “create[s] a constant and ongoing state of uncertainty about whether the guidance will continue in effect or be withdrawn or modified pursuant to a petition from the public.” Other commenters stated that it is not clear how the review of a petition would operate or what remedies would be available if the public disagrees with a determination made by HUD in response to a petition.
One commenter focused on several other aspects of the interim final rule that the commenter said are unclear, including the “description of the public participation requirement;” whether any exceptions to OIRA review under § 11.8 apply; how these exceptions interact with § 11.3(b); and the implications of the interim final rule on joint agency guidance. For the public participation requirement, the commenter referred to § 11.6(b), and stated that stakeholders cannot discern “when HUD is soliciting public input on potential significant guidance.” Another commenter stated that the applicability of the good cause exception is unclear.
One commenter stated that under the interim final rule, it is unclear how HUD would notify the public when significant guidance documents are available for comment, for example, whether HUD would publish the significant guidance documents in the
Commenters also stated that the interim final rule lacked clarity as to whether it applies to guidance retroactively and sought clarification on whether existing guidance documents remain in effect. One commenter recommended that the scope of the interim final rule be limited to future guidance and allow current guidance to remain in place until the issuance of newly issued guidance documents.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that the processes outlined in the interim final rule lack clarity and would likely lead to the inconsistent application of HUD's programs. HUD also agrees that the use of guidance is helpful to supplement regulatory and statutory requirements and that HUD does not want to suggest, as a commenter stated, that guidance documents can be ignored. HUD agrees that HUD guidance documents that aim to prohibit and prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities and other protected classes should be reasonably relied on by stakeholders.
As for the ambiguity pointed out by commenters on procedures and processes for public petitions, identification of significant guidance for public comment, and retroactivity of the rule, HUD agrees that the rule provided minimal guidance to the public on how HUD would address those provisions and believes this further supports the determination to remove 24 CFR part 11.
One commenter supported HUD's use of the indexed guidance portal, but many had questions about it. A commenter questioned whether HUD has the operational capacity to establish and maintain a “single, searchable, indexed website” as required by the interim final rule. The commenter stated that although the interim final rule went into effect on December 10, 2020, “it appears no such guidance website has been established.” The commenter also asked what HUD intends to do with the guidance documents not posted on this new guidance website, or what will happen with guidance documents that are removed from the website.
Other commenters questioned whether the guidance portal will achieve the goal of making program policies more transparent. One commenter specifically noted that separating guidance documents from other types of documents (such as, NOFAs, legal briefs, and opinions) makes program administration and policies less transparent, especially since it is not clear what a guidance document is under the interim final rule. The commenter also questioned what HUD meant by describing the guidance portal as “a single, accessible source of information” for HUD programs and policies. The commenter recommended that “it would be better to organize relevant documents of all types by program and subject matter, rather than by document type.”
Another commenter asked whether PHAs or members of the public could challenge HUD's decision to include or not include a guidance document on its website. The commenter noted that stakeholders “should have a formal opportunity to inform HUD if previously-issued helpful guidance has been omitted from the guidance website.” The commenter also recommended that HUD include on the portal cross-references to other federal agencies' guidance documents which potentially impact PHAs, such as, the Federal Highway Administration's guidance on relocation under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act.
Several commenters questioned HUD's authority to publish the interim final rule without first seeking public comment, noting that HUD did not adequately establish good cause to issue the rule. Commenters stated that no emergency or exigency existed to justify application of the good cause exception. These commenters said the fact that HUD issued its interim final rule more than a year after the issuance of E.O.
Some commenters generally supported the interim final rule but made recommendations for significant changes. One commenter supported the interim final rule's provision that provided the public a procedure to challenge the agency's issuance of guidance but recommended that the interim final rule also provide for “judicial review after the final disposition of a petition for withdrawal or modification of guidance documents.” The commenter reasoned that without additional procedure, regulated entities would have difficulty establishing that an agency's determination on a challenged guidance document is a “final agency action” subject to APA review. The commenter recommended revising § 11.6, by adding a paragraph that would provide, “[a]ny agency pronouncement, response, or failure to respond pursuant to this section shall constitute final agency action under 5 U.S.C. 704 and shall be subject to review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702.”
Other commenters offered revisions to § 11.6, including adding provisions for the public to request clarification of existing guidance, reinstatement of old guidance, or creation of new guidance, and establishing a mechanism for expediting guidance when necessary. Another commenter stated that the rule does not explain how new procedures, namely the petition process, will be accessible to people with disabilities and emphasized the importance of “ensuring that people with disabilities are afforded equal opportunity to comment during public notice and comment periods.” One commenter recommended extending the comment period for significant guidance to 60 days, instead of the existing 30 days, because significant guidance documents “are likely to be complex in subject matter and scope.”
President Biden's “Executive Order on Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation,” of January 20, 2021, revoking E.O. 13891 provides HUD the opportunity to remove 24 CFR part 11. Consideration of the comments received from the public provide HUD an additional basis for removing 24 CFR part 11.
Under E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made regarding whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” E.O. 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.
This rule was determined not to be a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and therefore was not reviewed by OMB. This rule is also not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
The rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector. This rule does not impose a Federal mandate on any state, local, or tribal government, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
E.O. 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either: (1) Imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or (2) preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of Section 6 of the E.O. This Interim final rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments nor preempt state law within the meaning of the E.O.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of the Treasury, Departmental Offices (DO), is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to exempt portion of the following new systems of records maintained by the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (SIGPR) from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. The exemption is intended to comply with the legal prohibitions against the disclosure of certain kinds of information and to protect certain information maintained in this system of records.
Effective July 6, 2021.
For questions about this notice and privacy issues, contact: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Privacy, Transparency, and Records at U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220; telephone: (202) 622-5710.
SIGPR was established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020. SIGPR has the duty to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits, evaluations, and investigations of the making, purchase, management, and sale of loans, loan guarantees, and other investments made by the Secretary of the Treasury under programs established by the Secretary, as authorized by Section 4018(c) of the CARES Act, and the management by the Secretary of programs, as authorized by Section 4018(c) of the CARES Act. SIGPR's duties and responsibilities are set forth in Section 4018 of the CARES Act, and in the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. app. 3. SIGPR plans to create these systems of records to facilitate SIGPR's audits, evaluations, investigations, and other operations to (1) promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of such programs; (2) prevent and detect fraud and abuse in the programs and operations within its jurisdiction; and (3) keep the head of the establishment and the Congress fully informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of such programs and operations and the necessity for and progress of corrective action. Treasury is publishing separately the notice of the new system of records to be maintained by SIGPR.
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2), the head of a federal agency may promulgate rules to exempt a system of records from certain provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a if the system of records contains investigatory materials compiled for law enforcement purposes. Pursuant to these provisions, Treasury exempts the following system of records from 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3), (c)(4), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g) of the Privacy Act:
The following are the reasons the investigatory materials contained in the above-referenced systems of records maintained by SIGPR may be exempted from various provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2):
(1) Exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G) and (f)(l) (Agency Requirements and Rules) because release would give individuals an opportunity to learn whether they have been identified as suspects or subjects of investigation. As further described in the following paragraph, access to such knowledge may impair the ability of the Department of the Treasury and SIGPR (the Department/SIGPR) to carry out its respective missions, since individuals could:
(i) Take steps to avoid detection;
(ii) Inform associates that an investigation is in progress;
(iii) Learn the nature of the investigation;
(iv) Learn whether they are suspects or, instead, have been identified as alleged law violators;
(v) Begin, continue, or resume illegal conduct upon learning that they are not identified in the system of records; or
(vi) Destroy evidence needed to prove the violation.
(2) Exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(1), (e)(4)(H) and (f)(2), (3) and (5) (Access to Records and Agency Requirements and Rules) because release might compromise the Department's/SIGPR's ability to provide useful tactical and strategic information to law enforcement agencies by:
(i) Permitting access to records contained in the systems of records such that it might provide information concerning the nature of current investigations and enable possible violators to avoid detection or apprehension by:
(A) Allowing the discovery of facts that could form the basis for violators' arrests;
(B) Enabling violators to destroy or alter evidence of alleged criminal conduct that could form the basis for arrest; and
(C) Using knowledge of the status of criminal investigations to delay the commission of a crime or commit a crime at a location that might not be under surveillance.
(ii) Permitting access to either on-going or closed investigative files might also reveal investigative techniques and
(iii) Permitting access to investigative files and records also could disclose the identity of confidential sources and informants and the nature of the information supplied, and thereby endanger the physical safety of those sources by exposing them to possible reprisals for having provided the information. In addition, confidential sources and informants might refuse to provide criminal investigators with valuable information if they fear their identities may be revealed through disclosure of their names or the nature of the information they supplied. Loss of access to such sources would seriously impair the Department's/SIGPR's ability to carry out its respective mandate.
(iv) Furthermore, providing access to information contained in the systems of records could reveal the identities of undercover law enforcement officers who compiled information regarding the individual's alleged criminal activities and thereby endanger the physical safety of those undercover officers or their families by exposing them to possible reprisals.
(v) By compromising the law enforcement value of the systems of records for the reasons outlined in paragraph (2), subsections (i) through (iv), permitting access in keeping with these provisions would discourage other law enforcement and regulatory agencies, foreign and domestic, from freely sharing information with the Department/SIGPR and thus would restrict the Department's/SIGPR's access to information necessary to accomplish its respective mission most effectively.
(vi) Finally, the dissemination of certain information that the Department/SIGPR maintains in the systems of records is restricted by law.
(3) Exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(2), (3) and (4), (e)(4)(H), and (f)(4) (Access to Records) because these provisions pertain to requesting an amendment or noting a dispute to records that are exempt from access for the reasons set forth in paragraph (2) above.
(4) Exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures of the records in this system could impair the ability of law enforcement agencies outside the Department/SIGPR from making effective use of information provided by the Department/SIGPR. Making accountings of disclosures available to the subjects of an investigation could alert them to the fact that another agency is conducting an investigation into their alleged criminal activities and could reveal the geographic location of the other agency's investigation, the nature and purpose of that investigation, and the dates on which that investigation was active. Individuals possessing such knowledge could take measures to avoid detection or apprehension by altering their operations, transferring their alleged criminal activities to other geographical areas, or destroying or concealing evidence that would form the basis for arrest. In the case of a delinquent account, such release might enable the subject of the investigation to dissipate assets before levy.
(ii) Moreover, providing accountings to the subjects of investigations would alert them to the fact that the Department/SIGPR has information regarding their alleged criminal activities and could inform them of the general nature of that information. Access to such information could reveal the operations of the Department/SIGPR's information-gathering and analysis systems and permit individuals to take steps to avoid detection or apprehension.
(5) Exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(4) (Accounting of Disclosures/Notice of Record Correction or Dispute) because this provision depends on an individual's having access to and an opportunity to request amendment of records that are exempt from access for the reasons set out above, this provision should not apply to the systems of records.
(6) Exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements/Publication of the Categories of Records) because it could compromise the Department/SIGPR's ability to provide useful information to law enforcement agencies, since revealing sources for the information could:
(i) Disclose investigative techniques and procedures;
(ii) Result in threats or reprisals against informants by the subjects of investigations; and
(iii) Cause informants to refuse to give full information to criminal investigators for fear of having their identities as sources disclosed.
(7) Exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) (Agency Requirements/Maintaining Records) because the term “maintain” includes “collect” and “disseminate,” and application of this provision to the systems of records could impair the Department/SIGPR's ability to collect and disseminate valuable law enforcement information in the following ways:
(i) In many cases, especially in the early stages of an investigation, it may be impossible to immediately determine whether information collected is relevant and necessary, and information that initially appears irrelevant and unnecessary often may, upon further evaluation or upon collation with information developed subsequently, prove particularly relevant to a law enforcement program.
(ii) Not all violations of law discovered by the Department/SIGPR fall within the investigative jurisdiction of the Department or SIGPR. To promote effective law enforcement, the Department/SIGPR may disclose such violations to other law enforcement agencies, including state, local and foreign agencies, that have jurisdiction over the offenses to which the information relates. Otherwise, the Department/SIGPR might be placed in the position of having to ignore information relating to violations of law not within the jurisdiction of the Department or SIGPR when that information comes to the Department/SIGPR's attention during the collation and analysis of information in its respective records.
(8) Exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(2) (Agency Requirements/Collection from an Individual) because it could impair the Department's ability to collate, analyze, and disseminate investigative, intelligence, and enforcement information. In addition:
(i) Most information collected about an individual under criminal investigation is obtained from third parties, such as witnesses and informants. It is usually not feasible to rely upon the subject of the investigation as a source for information regarding his or her alleged criminal activities.
(ii) An attempt to obtain information from the subject of a criminal investigation will often alert that individual to the existence of an investigation, thereby affording the individual an opportunity to attempt to conceal his or her alleged criminal activities and thus avoid apprehension.
(iii) In certain instances, the subject of a criminal investigation may assert his or her constitutional right to remain silent and refuse to supply information to criminal investigators upon request.
(iv) During criminal investigations, it is often a matter of sound investigative procedure to obtain information from a variety of sources to verify information already obtained from the subject of a criminal investigation or other sources.
(9) Exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) (Agency Requirements/Informing Individuals) because it could impair the
(i) Confidential sources or undercover law enforcement officers often obtain information under circumstances in which it is necessary to keep the true purpose of their actions secret so as not to let the subject of the investigation, or his or her associates, know that a criminal investigation is in progress.
(ii) If it became known that the undercover officer was assisting in a criminal investigation, that officer's physical safety could be endangered through reprisal, and that officer may not be able to continue working on the investigation.
(iii) Individuals often feel inhibited talking to a person representing a criminal law enforcement agency but are willing to talk to a confidential source or undercover officer whom they believe is not involved in law enforcement activities.
(iv) Providing a confidential source of information with written evidence that he or she was a source, as required by this provision, could increase the likelihood that the source of information would be subject to retaliation by the subject of the investigation.
(v) Individuals may be contacted during preliminary information gathering, surveys, or compliance projects concerning the administration of the internal revenue laws before any individual is identified as the subject of an investigation. Informing the individual of the matters required by this provision could impede or compromise subsequent investigations.
(10) Exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5) (Agency Requirements/Record Maintenance). Because the definition of “maintain” includes “collect” and “disseminate,” this provision could hinder the initial collection of any information that might not be determined or determinable, at the moment of collection, to be accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Similarly, application of this provision could seriously restrict the Department/SIGPR's ability to disseminate information pertaining to a possible violation of law to law enforcement and regulatory agencies. In collecting information during a criminal investigation, it is often impossible or unfeasible to determine accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness prior to collection of the information. In disseminating information to law enforcement and regulatory agencies, it is often impossible to determine accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness prior to dissemination because the Department/SIGPR may not have the expertise with which to make such determinations. Information that may initially appear inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete may, when collated and analyzed with other available information, become more pertinent as an investigation progresses. In addition, application of this provision could seriously impede criminal investigators and intelligence analysts in the exercise of their judgment in reporting results obtained during criminal investigations.
(11) Exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(8) (Agency Requirements/Notice) because it could reveal investigative techniques and procedures outlined in those records and to prevent revelation of the existence of an ongoing investigation where there is need to keep the existence of the investigation secret.
(12) Exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a(g) (Civil Remedies) because, if the civil remedies relate to provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a from which these rules exempt the systems of records, there should be no civil remedies for failure to comply with provisions from which the Department/SIGPR is exempted. Exemption from this provision will also protect the Department/SIGPR from baseless civil court actions that might hamper its ability to collate, analyze, and disseminate investigative, intelligence, and law enforcement data.
Any information from a system of records for which an exemption is claimed under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) or 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), which is also included in another system of records, retains the same exempt status such information has in the system of records for which such exemption is claimed.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action”' under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, it is hereby certified that this rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entity” is defined to have the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction” as defined in the RFA.
The regulation, issued under sections (j)(2) and (k)(2) of the Privacy Act, is to exempt certain information maintained by the Department/SIGPR in the above-referenced systems of records from certain Privacy Act requirements in this system of records by individuals who are United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence. In as much as the Privacy Act rights are personal and apply only to U.S. citizens or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, small entities, as defined in the RFA, are not provided rights under the Privacy Act and are outside the scope of this regulation.
Treasury received no comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking. No comment was received on the system of records notice. Treasury will implement the rulemaking as proposed.
Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 1, subpart C of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301 and 31 U.S.C. 321. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended. Subpart C also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is removing from the Code of Federal Regulations the International Criminal Court-Related Sanctions Regulations as a result of the termination of the national emergency on which the regulations were based.
This rule is effective July 6, 2021.
OFAC: Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, 202-622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website:
On June 11, 2020, the President, invoking the authority of,
On October 1, 2020, OFAC issued the International Criminal Court-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 520 (85 FR 61816, October 1, 2020) (the “Regulations”), as a final rule to implement E.O. 13928. The Regulations were issued in abbreviated form for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public.
On April 1, 2021, the President issued E.O. 14022, “Termination of Emergency With Respect to the International Criminal Court” (86 FR 17895, April 7, 2021). In E.O. 14022, the President found that, although the United States continues to object to the ICC's assertions of jurisdiction over personnel of such non-States Parties as the United States and its allies absent their consent or referral by the United Nations Security Council, the threat and imposition of financial sanctions against the ICC, its personnel, and those who assist it are not an effective or appropriate strategy for addressing the United States' concerns with the ICC. Accordingly, the President terminated the national emergency declared in E.O. 13928 and revoked that order.
As a result, OFAC is removing the Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. Pursuant to section 202(a) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(a)) and section 2 of E.O. 14022, termination of the national emergency declared in E.O. 13928 shall not affect any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined as of April 1, 2021 (the date of E.O. 14022), any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to the date of E.O. 14022, or any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to the date of E.O. 14022.
Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this rule does not impose information collection requirements that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Blocking of assets, International criminal court, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sanctions.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation for certain waters of Back River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters located in Baltimore County, MD, during a high-speed power boat event on July 10, 2021, and July 11, 2021. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from entering the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Event Patrol Commander.
This rule is effective from 9 a.m. on July 10, 2021, through 6 p.m. on July 11, 2021.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, email
On April 16, 2021, the Chesapeake Bay Power Boat Association of Edgewater, MD, notified the Coast Guard that from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on July 10, 2021, and from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on July 11, 2021, it will be conducting the 1st Annual Shootout on the River 2021 on Back River, between Lynch Point to the south and Walnut Point to the north, in Baltimore County, MD. In response, on May 25, 2021, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Special Local Regulation; Back River, Baltimore County, MD” (86 FR 28049). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this high-speed power boat competition. During the comment period that ended June 9, 2021, we received no comments.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with this July 10, 2021, and July 11, 2021 high-speed power boat event will be a safety concern for anyone intending to operate within certain waters of Back River in Baltimore County, MD. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the regulated area before, during, and after the scheduled event.
As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published May 25, 2021. There are no substantive changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. However, in subparagraph (c)(4), the term “race area” was changed to “course area” to conform with the remaining regulatory text.
This rule establishes special local regulations from 9 a.m. on July 10, 2021, through 6 p.m. on July 11, 2021. The regulated area will cover all navigable waters of Back River, within an area bounded by a line connecting the following points: From the shoreline at Lynch Point at latitude 39°14′46″ N, longitude 076°26′23″ W, thence northeast to Porter Point at latitude 39°15′13″ N, longitude 076°26′11″ W, thence north along the shoreline to Walnut Point at latitude 39°17′06″ N, longitude 076°27′04″ W, thence southwest to the shoreline at latitude 39°16′41″ N, longitude 076°27′31″ W, thence south along the shoreline to the point of origin, located in Baltimore County, MD. The duration of the special local regulations and size of the regulated area are intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the high-speed power boat competition, scheduled from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on July 10, 2021, and from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on July 11, 2021. The COTP and the Coast Guard Event Patrol Commander (PATCOM) will have authority to forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area.
Except for 1st Annual Shootout on the River participants and vessels already at berth, a vessel or person will be required to get permission from the COTP or Event PATCOM before entering the regulated area. Vessel operators will be able to request permission to enter and transit through the regulated area by contacting the Event PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit the regulated area once the Event PATCOM deems it safe to do so. A vessel within the regulated area must operate at safe speed that minimizes wake. A person or vessel not registered with the event sponsor as a participant or assigned as official patrols will be considered a spectator. Official Patrols are any vessel assigned or approved by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign. Official Patrols enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16 and channel 22A.
If permission is granted by the COTP or Event PATCOM, a person or vessel will be allowed to enter the regulated area or pass directly through the regulated area as instructed. Vessels will be required to operate at a safe speed that minimizes wake while within the regulated area. A spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable channel while within the regulated area. Official patrol vessels will direct spectators to the designated spectator area. Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels will be allowed to enter the course area.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the location, size and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of Back River for 18 total enforcement hours. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area established by the special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area lasting for 18 total enforcement hours. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Memorandum For Record for Categorically Excluded Actions supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(c)
(2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, a person or vessel within the regulated area at the start of enforcement of this section must immediately depart the regulated area.
(3) A spectator must contact the Event PATCOM to request permission to either enter or pass through the regulated area. The Event PATCOM, and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area, can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz). If permission is granted, the spectator must enter the designated Spectator Area or pass directly through the regulated area as instructed by Event PATCOM. A vessel within the regulated area must operate at safe speed that minimizes wake. A spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable channel while within the regulated area.
(4) Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the course area.
(5) A person or vessel that desires to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must obtain authorization from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM. A person or vessel seeking such permission can contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or the Event PATCOM on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(6) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event dates and times.
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Main Street Bridge, mile 55.97, the Jackson Street Bridge, mile 56.22, the Wisconsin Street Bridge, mile 56.72, the Congress Avenue Bridge, mile 58.01, all over the Fox River at Oshkosh, Wisconsin. This deviation will test the remote operations at each bridge with a drawtender in attendance to supervise each remote opening. The Coast Guard is seeking comments from the public regarding these proposed changes.
This deviation is effective from midnight on June 30, 2021, through midnight on October 7, 2021. Comments and relate material must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 1, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2021-0336 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this test deviation, call or email: Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email
This portion of the Fox River at Oshkosh flows from Lake Butte Des Mortts to Lake Winnebago, passing through five bridges. The first four bridges are highway bridges: Main Street Bridge, mile 55.97, the Jackson Street Bridge, mile 56.22, the Wisconsin Street Bridge, mile 56.72, the Congress Avenue Bridge, mile 58.01, and the fifth bridge is a single leaf bascule bridge that has been operating remotely successfully for over one year. Because of the success at the railroad bridge, we are considering allowing the other four bridges to operate remotely. During the summer, one hundred recreational vessels pass through these bridges on a daily average.
The Main Street Bridge, mile 55.97, provides a horizontal clearance of 89 feet and a vertical clearance 11 feet in the closed position, the Jackson Street Bridge, mile 56.22, provides a horizontal clearance of 97 feet and a vertical clearance 11 feet in the closed position, the Wisconsin Street Bridge, mile 56.72, provides a horizontal clearance of 75 feet and a vertical clearance 12 feet in the closed position, and the Congress Avenue Bridge, mile 58.01, provides a horizontal clearance of 75 feet and a vertical clearance 13 feet in the closed position. All of these bridges are over the Fox River and provide an unlimited clearance in the open position, and are governed by the regulations found in 33 CFR 117.1087.
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has requested to test the capabilities of the remote operating system with live operators in the bridges and allow the public to comment on the bridge operations before any changes are made.
This deviation will not change the operation of the bridges. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation will provide weekly bridge opening data and approximate vehicle and pedestrian crossings at the end of the test deviation. Each bridge will have the ability to communicate by visual or audio means including enough cameras to see above and below the bridge, including night vision cameras to monitor approaching river traffic in adverse weather conditions.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local Notice to Mariners when the comment period opens and how to leave comments.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone located in Federal regulations for a recurring marine event. This action is necessary and intended for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during this event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
The regulations listed in 33 CFR 165.939 as listed in Table 165.939(b)(10) will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 9, 2021.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST2 Natalie Smith, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-6004, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939, Table 165.939(b)(10) for the Sheffield Lake Community Days in Sheffield Lake, OH, on all U.S. waters of Lake Erie and Sheffield Lake Boat ramp within a 350 foot radius of land position 41°29′27.65″ N, 082°6′47.71″ W. Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Utah. The revision fulfills the base year inventory requirement for the 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the Uinta Basin, Northern Wasatch Front, and Southern Wasatch Front nonattainment areas (NAAs). Utah submitted the base year emissions inventories to meet, in part, the nonattainment requirements for Marginal ozone NAAs under the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110, 172, and 182 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This rule is effective on August 5, 2021.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0646. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Matthew Lang, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6709, email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our April 1, 2021 proposal.
EPA held a 30-day comment period on the proposed rulemaking beginning on April 1, 2021 and closing on May 3, 2021. We received one supportive comment letter from the Utah Petroleum Association (UPA), which focused on the Uinta Basin NAA. Our response to UPA's comment letter is below.
UPA also raises two areas of concern: (1) The lack of an opportunity to comment on the base year inventory for tribal lands within the Uinta Basin NAA; and (2) the need to be able to adjust the base year inventory based on evolving research and calculation methods. UPA explains that Utah's base year inventory includes only State-controlled lands, but tribal lands in the Uinta Basin include significant emissions sources, and UPA is not aware of any opportunity to comment on a base year inventory for the tribal lands. Further, UPA states that studies relevant to the emissions inventory are ongoing and recommends that EPA allow updates to the base year inventory to account for this evolving research. In particular, UPA states that such an update is important for determining the adequacy of future Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) emission reductions as well as for photochemical modeling.
Similarly, we thank UPA for informing us of ongoing studies related to emissions in the Uinta Basin NAA. The inventories submitted by the State of Utah were based on the most current and accurate information available to the State at the time that the inventories were developed. If, at any point in the future, Utah believes that a revision to the base year inventory is necessary, EPA is open to discussing that issue with the State.
EPA is finalizing approval of Utah's 2017 base year inventories for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Uinta Basin, Northern Wasatch Front, and Southern Wasatch Front Marginal NAAs because the State prepared the inventories in accordance with the requirements in sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) of the CAA and its implementing regulations, including those at 40 CFR 51.1315.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 7, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons set forth above, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a Clean Air Act (CAA or the “Act”) section 111(d) state plan submitted by the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality (NDDEQ or the “Department”) on July 28, 2020 for the control of air pollutants from existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The EPA is also approving a CAA section 111(d)/129 state plan submitted by the Department on the same date for the control of air pollutants from existing commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units and air curtain incinerator (ACI) units. The North Dakota state plans establish performance standards and operating requirements for existing MSW landfills, CISWI units and ACI units within the State of North Dakota and provide for the implementation and enforcement of those standards and requirements by the Department. Finally, the EPA is also approving withdrawal of the North Dakota CAA section 111(d)/129 state plan for the control of air pollutants from existing hospital/medical/infectious waste incineration (HMIWI) units. The EPA is approving this plan withdrawal following North Dakota's May 8, 2019 submittal of a negative declaration of existing HMIWI units in the State of North Dakota, and will be promulgating the State's negative declaration in lieu of a CAA section 111(d)/129 state plan for HMIWI units. The EPA is taking these actions pursuant to requirements of the CAA.
This rule is effective on August 5, 2021. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 5, 2021.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0187. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Gregory Lohrke, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-TRM, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6396, email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our March 26, 2021 proposed rule (86 FR 16173). In that document we proposed to approve the North Dakota CAA section 111(d) state plan for existing MSW landfills and the North Dakota CAA section 111(d)/129 state plan for existing CISWI units as the plans were submitted by the NDDEQ on July 28, 2020. That document also proposed approval of the North Dakota withdrawal of a previously approved CAA section 111(d)/129 state plan for existing HMIWI units and publication of the State's negative declaration of existing HMIWI units in lieu of a state plan. The EPA's analysis of the two North Dakota state plans and the negative declaration of designated sources may be found in the aforementioned proposed rule and the technical support document (TSD) associated with the docket for today's action. Comments on the EPA's proposed approvals of the state plans for existing CISWI units and MSW landfills and approval of the negative declaration in lieu of a state plan for existing HMIWI units were due on or before April 26, 2021. We received no comments on our proposed actions. Therefore, the EPA will proceed with these plan approvals without changes.
The EPA is finalizing approval of the North Dakota section 111(d) state plan for existing MSW landfills pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf. We are also finalizing approval of the North Dakota section 111(d)/129 state plan for existing CISWI units pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD. Finally, we are finalizing approval of the State's negative declaration of existing HMIWI units in lieu of a state plan for such units as designated by 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce. Therefore, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62, subpart JJ to reflect this approval action. This approval is based on the rationale provided in section II of the proposed rule for this action (86 FR 16173) and discussed in detail in the TSD associated with this rulemaking action.
The EPA Administrator continues to retain authority for approval of alternative methods to determine the nonmethane organic compound concentration or a site-specific methane generation rate constant (k), as stipulated in 40 CFR 60.30f(c). The EPA Administrator also retains those authorities related to designated CISWI and ACI units that will not be delegated to state, local or tribal authorities as listed in 40 CFR 60.2542.
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes the incorporation by reference of subparts Cf and DDDD of chapter 33.1-15-12, section 2 of the North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) as effective on July 1, 2020. Subparts Cf and DDDD are part of the North Dakota CAA section 111(d) state plan applicable to existing MSW landfills and the section 111(d)/129 state plan for existing CISWI units, respectively. The regulatory provisions of these sections of the NDAC incorporate the required 111(d) and 111(d)/129 state plan elements required by the emission guidelines (EG) for existing MSW landfills and CISWI units promulgated at 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cf and DDDD. The incorporations establish emission standards and compliance times for the control of air pollutants from certain MSW landfills that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction on or before July 17, 2014 and designated CISWI and ACI units that commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010 or commenced modification or reconstruction no later than August 7, 2013. The emissions standards and compliance times established within these NDAC sections and the North Dakota state plans are at least as stringent as those required by the EG for existing MSW landfills and CISWI units. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, NDAC section 33.1-15-12-02 (as well as the North Dakota state plan documents for existing MSW landfills and CISWI units) generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve section 111(d) state plan submissions that comply with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 40 CFR part 60, subparts B, Cf and DDDD; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. Thus, in reviewing CAA section 111(d) state plan submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act and implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the CAA section 111(d) Plans are not approved to apply in Indian country, as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151, located in the state. As such, this rule does not have tribal implications, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), and 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 7, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration, Hospital medical and infectious waste incineration, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Methane, Municipal solid waste landfill, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
Section 111(d) State Plan for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and the associated State regulations contained in the North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) at 33.1-15-12-02, subpart Cf (incorporated by reference, see § 62.8700), submitted by the State on July 28, 2020.
The plan applies to all existing municipal solid waste landfills under the jurisdiction of the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality for which construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced on or before July 17, 2014, and are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.
The effective date of the plan for existing municipal solid waste landfills is August 5, 2021.
The State of North Dakota submitted a letter on May 8, 2019 certifying that there are no designated facilities subject to the emission guidelines for existing hospital medical infectious waste incinerators under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce operating within the State's jurisdiction.
Amended section 111(d)/129 State Plan for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units and the associated State regulations contained in the North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) at 33.1-15-12-02, subpart DDDD (incorporated by reference, see § 62.8700), submitted by the State on July 28, 2020.
The plan applies to all existing commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units and air curtain incinerators under the jurisdiction of the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality for which construction commenced on or before June 4, 2010, or for which modification or reconstruction commenced no later than August 7, 2013, and are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD.
The effective date of the plan for existing commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units is August 5, 2021.
(a) The material incorporated by reference in this subpart was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The material may be inspected or obtained from the EPA Region 8 office, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129, 303-312-6312 or from the other sources listed in this section. It may also be inspected at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
(b) State of North Dakota, Legislative Council, 600 E Boulevard Ave., Bismarck, ND 58505-0360, (701) 328-2916,
(1) NDAC 33.1-15-12-02, subpart Cf., Title 33.1 North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, Article 33.1-15 Air Pollution Control, Chapter 33.1-15-12—Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Section 33.1-15-12-02 Standards of performance, Subpart Cf—Emission guidelines and compliance times for municipal solid waste landfills, effective July 1, 2020; IBR approved for § 62.8600.
(2) NDAC 33.1-15-12-02, subpart DDDD. Title 33.1 North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, Article 33.1-15 Air Pollution Control, Chapter 33.1-15-12—Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Section 33.1-15-12-02 Standards of performance, Subpart DDDD—Emission guidelines and compliance times commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units, effective July 1, 2020; IBR approved for § 62.8630.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Referendum order; amendment to referendum order.
This document reopens the voting period for the referendum being conducted among eligible growers of pecans grown in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas to determine whether they favor continuance of the marketing order regulating the handling of pecans produced in the production area. The voting period has been reopened for an additional 25 days from June 29, 2021, to July 23, 2021.
The voting period for the referendum will be reopened from June 29 through July 23, 2021. Only current pecan growers within the production area that produced a minimum average of 50,000 pounds of inshell pecans over the four years from October 1, 2016, to September 30, 2020, or own a minimum of 30 pecan acres are eligible to vote in this referendum.
Copies of the marketing order may be obtained from the Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1124 First Street South, Winter Haven, FL 33880; Telephone: (863) 324-3375; or from the Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491; or on the internet:
Abigail Campos, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1124 First Street South, Winter Haven, FL 33880; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Pursuant to Marketing Agreement and Order No. 986, as amended (7 CFR part 986), hereinafter referred to as the “Order,” and the applicable provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the Order is favored by growers.
A referendum order was published in the
To be eligible to participate in the continuance referendum, a grower must have produced a minimum average of 50,000 pounds of inshell pecans during the four-year period from October 1, 2016, to September 30, 2020 or must own a minimum of 30 pecan acres.
USDA has determined continuance referenda are an effective means for determining whether growers favor the continuation of marketing order programs. The Order will continue in effect if two-thirds of the growers that cast votes, or growers representing two-thirds of the volume of pecans voted in the referendum, cast ballots in favor of continuance. In evaluating the merits of continuance versus termination, USDA will determine whether continued operation of the Order would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the ballots used in the referendum have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB No. 0581-0291, Federal Marketing Order for Pecans. It has been estimated it will take an average of 20 minutes for each of the approximately 4,270 growers of pecans to cast a ballot. Participation is voluntary. Ballots postmarked after July 23, 2021, will not be included in the vote tabulation.
Abigail Campos, Dolores Lowenstine, and Christian D. Nissen of the Southeast Marketing Field Office, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, are hereby designated as the referendum agents for the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct this referendum. The procedure applicable to the referendum shall be the “Procedure for the Conduct of Referenda in Connection with Marketing Orders for Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as Amended” (7 CFR 900.400
Ballots may be obtained from the referendum agents or their appointees at the previously mentioned contact information.
Marketing agreements, Pecans, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published on September 25, 2020. The NPRM proposed to revise DHS regulations governing the length of stay for F, J, and certain I nonimmigrants.
DHS withdraws the NPRM at 85 FR 60526 as of July 6, 2021.
The docket for this withdrawn proposed rule is available at
Sharon Hageman, Regulations Unit Chief, Office of Policy and Planning, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, 500 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20536. Telephone 202-732-6960 (not a toll-free number).
On September 25, 2020, DHS published an NPRM titled, “Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media” (85 FR 60526). The NPRM proposed to eliminate the duration of status admission period for F, J and certain I nonimmigrants and replace it with a fixed time period. Nonimmigrants seeking to remain in the United States beyond their fixed period of admission would have been required to apply for an extension of stay directly with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or to depart the country and apply for admission with U.S. Customs and Border Protection at a port of entry.
In response to the NPRM, DHS received more than 32,000 comments during the 30-day public comment period. More than 99 percent of commenters opposed the proposed rule with many commenters specifically requesting that DHS withdraw the NPRM.
On February 2, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14012, “Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans.” Section 3(a)(i), instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify barriers that impede access to immigration benefits. 86 FR 8277, (Feb. 5, 2021). (“E.O. 14012”). Having reviewed the public comments received in response to the NPRM in light of Executive Order 14012, DHS believes some of the comments may be justified and is concerned that the changes proposed unnecessarily impede access to immigration benefits. DHS still supports the goals of the NPRM to protect the integrity of programs that admit nonimmigrants in the F, J, and I classifications but not in a way that conflicts with Executive Order 14012. Accordingly, we are withdrawing the NPRM and will analyze the entirety of the NPRM in the context of the directive in E.O. 14012 to determine what changes may be appropriate and consistent with DHS's needs, policies, and applicable law. As such, DHS may engage in a future rulemaking to protect the integrity of programs that admit nonimmigrants in the F, J, and I classifications in a manner consistent with Executive Order 14012.
As stated in the NPRM, DHS has general and specific statutory authority to regulate the admission of nonimmigrants. 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1184(a); 85 FR 60526. DHS is withdrawing the NPRM using those same authorities.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Model 206, 206A, 206A-1 (OH-58A), 206B, 206B-1, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 206L-4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230, 407, 427, 429, and 430 helicopters. This proposed AD would require removing each shoulder harness seat belt comfort clip (comfort clip) from service, inspecting the shoulder harness seat belt for any rip or abrasion, and removing any shoulder harness seat belt from service that has a rip or abrasion. This proposed AD would also prohibit installing any comfort clip on any helicopter. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a comfort clip interfering with the seat belt inertia reel. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 20, 2021.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Bell Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone 1-450-437-2862 or 1-800-363-8023; fax 1-450-433-0272; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Steven Warwick, Aerospace Engineer, Certification Section, Fort Worth ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5225; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Steven Warwick, Aerospace Engineer, Certification Section, Fort Worth ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5225; email
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2018-16, dated June 14, 2018 (Transport Canada AD CF-2018-16), to correct an unsafe condition for all serial-numbered Bell Model 206, 206A, 206A-1, 206B, 206B-1, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 206L-4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230, 407, 427, 429 and 430 helicopters. Transport Canada advises that Bell delivered comfort clips with some helicopters, and that these comfort clips, which were also sold as spare parts or accessories, were intended to improve occupant comfort by reducing shoulder harness tension. However, Transport Canada advises the comfort clip may interfere with the shoulder harness inertia reel, preventing the harness from locking and resulting in injury to the occupant during an emergency landing. To prevent this unsafe condition, Transport Canada AD CF-2018-16 requires, within 25 hours air time or 10 days, whichever occurs first, determining if the comfort clips are installed. If the comfort clips are installed, Transport Canada AD CF-2018-16 requires removing them from service within 100 hours air time or 30 days, whichever occurs first, and inspecting each shoulder harness seat belt for damage and replacing any shoulder harness seat belt that has damage that exceeds allowable limits before further flight. Transport Canada AD CF-2018-16 also prohibits the installation of any comfort clip on any helicopter.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs.
The FAA reviewed the following Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletins (ASBs), each dated January 11, 2016:
• ASB 222-15-112 for Bell Model 222, 222B, and 222U helicopters with serial numbers (S/N) 47006 through 47089, 47131 through 47156, and 47501 through 47574 (ASB 222-15-112);
• ASB 230-15-46 for Bell Model 230 helicopters with S/N 23001 through 23038;
• ASB 407-15-111 for Model 407 helicopters with S/N 53000 through 53900, 53911 through 54166, and 54300 through 54599;
• ASB 427-15-39 for Model 427 helicopters with S/N 56001 through 56084, 58001 and 58002 (ASB 427-15-39);
• ASB 429-15-27 for Model 429 helicopters with S/N 57001 through 57259 (ASB 429-15-27); and
• ASB 430-15-56 for Model 430 helicopters with S/N 49001 through 49129.
The FAA also reviewed the following Bell Helicopter ASBs, both Revision A and both dated February 5, 2016:
• ASB 206-15-133 for Model 206A/B and TH-67 helicopters with S/N 4 through 4690 and 5101 through 5313 (ASB 206-15-133); and
• ASB 206L-15-175 for Model 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, and 206L-4 helicopters with S/N 45001 through 45153, 46601 through 46617, 45154 through 45790, 51001 through 51612, and 52001 through 52455 (ASB 206L-15-175).
All of the ASBs specify removing all variants of comforts clips from all seat belt assemblies. ASB 222-15-112, ASB 427-15-39, and ASB 429-15-27 also specify that although the helicopter models to which these ASBs apply were not affected by the original design at the time of certification and delivery of the helicopter, the affected parts may have been installed post-delivery to end owners/operators of those helicopters.
ASB 206-15-133 and ASB 206L-15-175 also specify that helicopters that have been modified per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SH2073SO (installation of shoulder harness restraint system) are affected and therefore included in the ASB applicability.
ASB 206L-15-175 also specifies that helicopters that have been modified per STC SH2751SO (installation of a passenger shoulder harness restraint system) are affected and therefore included in the ASB applicability.
This proposed AD would require, within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, removing from service each comfort clip and inspecting each shoulder harness seat belt for a rip and abrasion. If there is a rip or abrasion, this proposed AD would require removing the shoulder harness seat belt from service before further flight. This proposed AD would also prohibit installing a comfort clip on any helicopter as of the effective date of the proposed AD.
This proposed AD would require removing the comfort clip and inspecting the shoulder harness seat belt within 25 hours TIS; Transport Canada AD CF-2018-16 requires inspecting for the presence of a comfort clip at 25 hours air time, or 10 days, whichever occurs first, and then requires removing the comfort clip, if installed. Transport Canada AD CF-2018-16 requires inspecting the shoulder harness seat belt for any damage that exceeds allowable limits within 100 hours air time or 30 days, whichever occurs first, whereas this proposed AD would require the inspection within 25 hours TIS and removing any shoulder harness seat belt from service before further flight if there is any rip or abrasion.
Transport Canada AD CF-2018-16 applies to all serial-numbered Model 206, 206A, 206A-1, 206B, 206B-1, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 206L-4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230, 407, 427, 429 and 430 helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would apply to Model 206, 206A, 206A-1, 206B, 206B-1, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 206L-4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230, 407, 427, 429 and 430 helicopters with a comfort clip installed or helicopters that have been modified per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SH2073SO (installation of shoulder harness restraint system) or STC SH2751SO (installation of a passenger shoulder harness restraint system).
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 2,347 helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
Removing each comfort clip would take about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per clip and up to $807,368 for the U.S. fleet.
Replacing a shoulder harness seat belt, if required, would take about 1 work-hour and parts would cost about $250 per shoulder harness seat belt, for an estimated cost of $335 per replacement.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by August 20, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to Bell Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Model 206, 206A, 206A-1 (OH-58A), 206B, 206B-1, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 206L-4, 222, 222B, 222U, 230, 407, 427, 429, and 430 helicopters, certificated in any category:
(1) With a shoulder harness seat belt comfort clip (comfort clip) installed; or
(2) That have been modified per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SH2073SO (installation of shoulder harness restraint system) or STC SH2751SO (installation of a passenger shoulder harness restraint system).
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2500 Cabin Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a comfort clip interfering with the seat belt
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 25 hours time-in-service, after the effective date of this AD:
(i) Remove each comfort clip from service.
(ii) Inspect each shoulder harness seat belt for a rip and abrasion. If there is a rip or any abrasion, before further flight, remove the shoulder harness seat belt from service.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any comfort clip on any helicopter.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Steven Warwick, Aerospace Engineer, Certification Section, Fort Worth ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5225; email
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone 1-450-437-2862 or 1-800-363-8023; fax 1-450-433-0272; email
(3) The subject of this AD is addressed Transport Canada AD CF-2018-16, dated June 14, 2018. You may view the Transport Canada AD on the internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a broken forward guide arm found during a passenger door emergency opening test. Investigation results indicated that the opening speed of the door was higher than expected, likely caused by a reduced damping due to oil leakage of the passenger door damper emergency opening actuator (DEOA). This proposed AD would require repetitively replacing certain forward and aft guide arms on the passenger door, inspecting the forward and aft guide arm support brackets for damage, modifying certain DEOAs, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would also provide an optional terminating action for the repetitive replacements, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 20, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218; email
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0085, dated March 19, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0085) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. EASA AD 2021-0085 supersedes EASA AD 2021-0018 dated 15 January 2021, retains all requirements and adds terminating action for the repetitive replacements.
This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a broken forward guide arm found during a passenger door emergency opening test. Investigation results indicated that the opening speed of the door was higher than expected, likely caused by a reduced damping due to oil leakage of the passenger door DEOA. The FAA is proposing this AD to address failure of a passenger door to perform its intended function during an emergency opening, which could result in reduced evacuation capacity from the airplane and injury to occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.
EASA AD 2021-0085 describes procedures for repetitively replacing the forward and aft guide arms following any passenger door emergency opening, modifying the airplane so that there is a maximum of one affected DEOA per door pair (left- and right-hand sides), inspecting the forward and aft guide arm support brackets for damage, and repair. EASA AD 2021-0085 also describes procedures for replacement of each affected DEOA having part number FE396001001, which is terminating action for the repetitive replacements.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2021-0085 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2021-0085 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2021-0085 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2021-0085 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2021-0085 will be available on the internet at
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed AD.
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by August 20, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by a report of a broken forward guide arm found during a passenger door emergency opening test. Investigation results indicated that the opening speed of the door was higher than expected, likely caused by a reduced damping due to oil leakage of the passenger door damper emergency opening actuator (DEOA). The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of a passenger door to perform its intended function during an emergency opening, which could result in reduced evacuation capacity from the airplane and injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) EASA AD 2021-0085, dated March 19, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0085).
(1) Where EASA AD 2021-0085 refers to January 29, 2021 (the effective date of EASA AD 2021-0018), this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2021-0085 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(3) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2021-0085 does not apply to this AD.
(4) Where paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA AD 2021-0085 refer to “the limits as defined in the inspection SB [service bulletin],” for this AD use “the limits as defined in ASR [aircraft structural repair] A350-A-51-73-11-01ZZZ-667Z-A.”
(5) Where paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2021-0085 specify to “replace the forward and aft guide arms on that door in accordance with the instructions of the inspection SB,” this AD requires “removing the forward and aft guide arms on that door, in accordance with the instructions of the inspections SB; doing a detailed inspection of the forward and aft guide arm support bracket on that door and all applicable corrective actions as specified in paragraphs (3) through (5) of EASA AD 2021-0085; and installing new forward and aft guide arms on that door, in accordance with the instructions of the inspections SB.”
Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0085 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) For information about EASA AD 2021-0085, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-25-05, which applies to all Hoffmann GmbH & Co. KG (Hoffmann) model HO-V 72 propellers. AD 2020-25-05 requires amending the existing aircraft flight manual (AFM) with abnormal propeller vibration instructions. AD 2020-25-05 also requires visual inspection and non-destructive test (NDT) inspection of the propeller hub and, depending on the results of the inspections, replacement of the propeller hub with a part eligible for installation. AD 2020-25-05 also requires replacement of the propeller hub before exceeding 30 years since the date of manufacture. Since the FAA issued AD 2020-25-05, analyses of the inspection results showed that the 30-year life limit of the propeller hub is no longer needed. This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2020-25-05 and remove the 30-year life limit of the propeller hub. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 20, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Hoffmann GmbH & Co. KG, Küpferlingstrasse 9, 83022, Rosenheim, Germany; phone: +49 0 8031 1878 0; email:
You may examine the AD docket at
Michael Schwetz, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7761; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Michael Schwetz, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued AD 2020-25-05, Amendment 39-21347 (85 FR 78702, December 7, 2020), (AD 2020-25-05), for all Hoffmann model HO-V 72 propellers. AD 2020-25-05 was prompted by reports of cracks at different positions on two affected propeller hubs. AD 2020-25-05 requires amending the existing AFM with abnormal propeller vibration instructions. AD 2020-25-05 also requires visual inspection and NDT inspection of the propeller hub and, depending on the results of the inspections, replacement of the propeller hub with a part eligible for installation. AD 2020-25-05 also requires replacement of the propeller hub before exceeding 30 years since the date of manufacture or within 30 days after the effective date of AD 2020-25-05, whichever occurs later. The agency issued AD 2020-25-05 to prevent failure of the propeller hub.
Since the FAA issued AD 2020-25-05, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2020-0226R1, dated March 31, 2021 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:
Cracks have been reported at different positions on two affected parts, both installed on Slingsby T67 “Firefly” aeroplanes. One crack was found during scheduled inspection, the other crack during an unscheduled inspection after abnormal vibrations occurred. Both cases are under investigation by Hoffmann Propeller.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight propeller detachment, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and/or injury to persons on the ground.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Hoffmann issued the SB, providing applicable instructions.
For the reasons described above, EASA issued Emergency AD 2020-0226-E to require inspections of affected parts and, depending on findings, replacement, and introduces a life limit for affected parts. That [EASA] AD also required, for certain aeroplanes, amendment of the applicable Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM).
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, recent analyses of inspection results showed that the life limit of 30 years is no longer necessary and Hoffmann Propeller issued Revision D of the SB accordingly.
This [EASA] AD is revised to delete the life limit and to introduce a clarification for corrective action(s) during overhaul in paragraph (6) [of EASA AD].
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket at
In addition, Hoffmann issued Service Bulletin SB E53, Rev. D, dated February 18, 2021, to no longer specify that the propeller hub be replaced before exceeding 30 years since the date of manufacture.
This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information. The FAA is issuing this NPRM because the agency evaluated all the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Hoffmann Propeller GmbH & Co. KG Service Bulletin SB E53, Rev. D, dated February 18, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for visual and NDT inspections of the propeller hub for cracks. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2020-25-05. This proposed AD would no longer require that the propeller hub be replaced before exceeding 30 years since the date of manufacture or within 30 days after the effective date of AD 2020-25-05.
EASA AD 2020-0226R1, dated March 31, 2021, applies to Hoffmann HO-V 72 propellers with propeller hub HO-V 72 ( ) ( )-( )-( ) that have been used or are expected to be used for aerobatic maneuvers. This proposed AD applies to all Hoffmann model HO-V 72 propellers regardless of their use.
Hoffmann Propeller GmbH & Co. KG Service Bulletin SB E53, Rev. D, dated February 18, 2021, specifies that operators must send any propeller found with a crack to Hoffmann for investigation. The service bulletin also specifies that operators must report any propeller with cracked hubs to Hoffmann. This proposed AD does not mandate sending the propeller or information to Hoffmann.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 35 propellers installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA
The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by August 20, 2021.
This AD replaces AD 2020-25-05, Amendment 39-21347 (85 FR 78702, December 7, 2020).
This AD applies to all Hoffmann GmbH & Co. KG HO-V 72 propellers.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6114, Propeller Hub Section.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks at different positions on two affected propeller hubs. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the propeller hub. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in release of the propeller, damage to the airplane, and injury to persons on the ground.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Before the next flight after December 22, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-25-05), amend the existing aircraft flight manual by inserting the procedure: “Abnormal propeller vibrations: As applicable, reduce engine RPM.”
(2) Before the next flight after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter, before the next flight after any flight where abnormal propeller vibrations have been experienced, visually inspect propeller hub HO-V 72 ( ) ( )-( )-( ) for cracks using paragraph 2.1 of Hoffmann Propeller GmbH & Co. KG Service Bulletin SB E53, Rev. D, dated February 18, 2021 (the SB).
(3) Within 20 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a non-destructive test (NDT) inspection of propeller hub HO-V 72 ( ) ( )-()-( ) using paragraph 2.3 of the SB.
(4) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) or (3) of this AD, any crack is detected, replace propeller hub HO-V 72 ( ) ( )-( )-( ) with a part eligible for installation.
(5) During each overhaul of propeller hub HO-V 72 ( ) ( )-( )-( ) after the effective date of this AD, perform an NDT inspection using paragraph 2.3 of the SB.
For the purpose of this AD, a “part eligible for installation” is a propeller hub HO-V 72 ( ) ( )-( )-( ) with zero hours time since new or a propeller hub HO-V 72 ( ) ( )-( )-( ) that has passed an NDT inspection using paragraph 2.3 of the SB.
(1) Sending the propeller to Hoffmann for investigation, as contained in paragraph 2.1 of the SB, is not required by this AD.
(2) Reporting propeller hubs with cracks to Hoffmann, as contained in paragraph 2.3 of the SB, is not required by this AD.
You may take credit for the initial visual inspection and NDT inspection of the propeller hub required by paragraphs (g)(2), (3), and (5) of this AD if you performed any of these actions before the effective date of this AD using Hoffmann Propeller GmbH & Co. KG SB E53 Rev. A, dated October 9, 2020; Rev. B, dated October 14, 2020; or Rev. C, dated December 9, 2020.
A special flight permit may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the airplane to a service facility to perform the NDT inspection. Special flight permits are prohibited to perform the visual inspection of the propeller hub.
(1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in Related Information.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Michael Schwetz, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7761; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0226R1, dated March 31, 2021, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Hoffmann GmbH & Co. KG, Küpferlingstrasse 9, 83022, Rosenheim, Germany; phone: +49 0 8031 1878 0; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport, Monroe, NC. The FAA is proposing this action as a result of the Charlotte Class B Biennial Review. This action would also update the airports name to Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport, (formerly Monroe Airport). In addition, this action would also update the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's database. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2021.
Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2021-0529; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-18, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11E Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments, can be viewed online at
John Goodson, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone: (404) 305-5966.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would amend Class E airspace in Monroe, NC, to support IFR operations in the area.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2021-0529 and Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-18) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0529; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-18.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport, Monroe, NC, by increasing the radius to 9.0 miles, (formerly 6.3 miles). In addition, this action would update the airport name to Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport (formerly Monroe Airport) and update the geographical coordinates to coincide with the FAA's database.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures”, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.0-mile radius of Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to revoke the Class E extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Peebles, OH; and amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Alexander Salamon Airport, West Union, OH. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of airspace reviews caused by the decommissioning of the West Union non-federal non-directional beacon (NDB). The geographic coordinates of the Alexander Salamon Airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2021.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0471/Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-25 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would revoke the Class E extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Peebles, OH; and amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Alexander Salamon Airport, West Union, OH, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:
Revoking the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Peebles, OH;
And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 7.7-mile) radius of Alexander Salamon Airport, West Union, OH; removing the name associated with the airport to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is due to airspace reviews caused by the decommissioning of the West Union non-federal NDB and the closure of the airport and cancellation of the instrument procedures at Peebles, OH.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the Alexander Salamon Airport.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
This document proposes to amend the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations regarding non-preferential origin determinations for merchandise imported from Canada or Mexico. Specifically, this document proposes that CBP will apply certain tariff-based rules of origin in the CBP regulations for all non-preferential determinations made by CBP, specifically, to determine when a good imported from Canada or Mexico has been substantially transformed resulting in an article with a new name, character, or use. For consistency, this document also proposes to modify the CBP regulations for certain country of origin determinations for government procurement. Collectively, the proposed amendments in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) are intended to reduce administrative burdens and inconsistency for non-preferential origin determinations for merchandise imported from Canada or Mexico for purposes of the implementation of the Agreement Between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA). Elsewhere in this issue of the
Comments must be received by August 5, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by
• Federal eRulemaking Portal at
• Mail: Due to COVID-19-related restrictions, CBP has temporarily suspended its ability to receive public comments by mail.
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the NPRM, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information or authority that support such recommended change.
The country of origin of merchandise imported into the customs territory of the United States (the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) is important for several reasons. The country of origin of merchandise determines the rate of duty, admissibility, quota, eligibility for procurement by government agencies, and marking requirements. There are various rules of origin for goods imported into the customs territory of the United States, generally referred to as “preferential” and “non-preferential” rules of origin. “Preferential” rules are those that apply to merchandise to determine eligibility for special treatment, including reduced or zero tariff rates, under various trade agreements or duty preference legislation,
CBP applies two different methods for determining if merchandise has been substantially transformed. One method involves case-by-case adjudication, relying primarily on tests articulated in judicial precedent and past administrative rulings. The other method consists of codified rules in part 102 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 102) (referred to as the part 102 rules), which are primarily expressed through specified differences in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) classification of the good and its materials. This method is often referred to as the “change in tariff classification”
CBP first promulgated the part 102 rules in 1994 to fulfill the commitment of the United States under Annex 311 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which required the parties to establish rules for determining whether a good is a good of a NAFTA party (
On November 30, 2018, the “Protocol Replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement with the Agreement Between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada” (the Protocol) was signed to replace the NAFTA. Section 601 of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act (USMCA Act), Public Law 116-113, 134 Stat. 11 (19 U.S.C. Chapter 29), repealed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (NAFTA Implementation Act), Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (19 U.S.C. 3301
In another IFR published elsewhere in this issue of the
Although the NAFTA Implementation Act was repealed by the USMCA Act as of July 1, 2020, the part 102 rules remain in 19 CFR part 102 and are applicable for country of origin marking determinations for goods imported from Canada or Mexico under the USMCA (pursuant to the IFR, being concurrently published, as explained above). The part 102 rules, specifically §§ 102.21 through 102.25, are also to be used by CBP to determine the country of origin of textile and apparel products (imported from all countries except from Israel (
After the part 102 rules were promulgated in 1994, the rules were subsequently amended to also include references to specific U.S. trade agreements that incorporated those rules as part of the determination for trade preference eligibility,
Unlike the NAFTA, the USMCA does not refer to a marking requirement, except with regard to certain agricultural goods. For certain agricultural goods, the USMCA does contain a requirement that a good must first qualify to be marked as a good of Canada or Mexico in order to receive preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA. For most goods, only the general Uniform Regulations regarding rules of origin set forth in Appendix A of part 182 of title 19 (19 CFR part 182) and the product-specific rules of origin contained in General Note 11, HTSUS, are needed to determine whether a good is an originating good under the USMCA and therefore is eligible to receive preferential tariff treatment.
The Secretary of the Treasury has general rulemaking authority, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1304 and 1624, to make such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of section 304(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, related to the country of origin requirements for imported articles of foreign origin. The Department of the Treasury and CBP have concluded that extending application of the well-established part 102 rules to goods imported from the USMCA countries of Canada and Mexico will provide continuity for the importing community because those rules have been applied to all imports from these countries since 1994.
When promulgating the part 102 rules in 1994, the U.S. Customs Service (now CBP) explained:
. . . the long history of the substantial transformation rule, [and] its administration has not been without problems. These problems devolve from the fact that application of the substantial transformation rule is on a case-by-case basis and often involves subjective judgments as to what
Importers of goods from Canada and Mexico are well-versed in the part 102 rules, and the greater specificity and transparency those rules provide will facilitate the determination of eligibility for USMCA tariff preferences for certain agricultural goods, as noted above. Accordingly, to make the transition from the NAFTA to the USMCA as smooth as possible for the importing community, CBP is amending 19 CFR parts 102 and 134, in the IFR concurrently published today, to continue application of the part 102 rules to determine the country of origin for marking purposes of a good imported from Canada or Mexico.
CBP has not previously applied the part 102 rules for non-preferential origin determinations involving goods imported from Canada and Mexico other than for textile products and for purposes of determining country of origin marking. CBP has, instead, used case-by-case adjudication for other non-preferential origin determinations. CBP makes such non-preferential origin determinations for purposes such as admissibility, quota, procurement by government agencies, and application of duties imposed under sections 301 to 307 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2411-2417, commonly referred to as “Section 301”). This means that importers of goods from Canada and Mexico are subject to two different non-preferential origin determinations for imported merchandise: One for marking; and, another for determining origin for other purposes. Consequently, these importers must also potentially comply with requirements to declare two different countries of origin for the same imported good (
To address these burdens, CBP is proposing to amend the scope section of part 102 of title 19 of the CFR so that the substantial transformation standard will be applied consistently across all non-preferential origin determinations that CBP makes for merchandise imported from Canada and Mexico. This purpose is accomplished by adding new language to the scope provision of the part 102 rules. The proposed regulatory change will obviate the need for importers of merchandise from Canada and Mexico wishing to comply with the various laws that require CBP origin determinations from having to request multiple non-preferential country of origin determinations from CBP for a particular good. The proposed regulatory change also means that CBP will no longer need to issue rulings with multiple non-preferential origin determinations goods imported from Canada or Mexico, and there will no longer be rulings that conclude that a good imported from Canada or Mexico has two different origins under the USMCA (
CBP is also proposing to make corresponding edits to part 177 of title 19 of the CFR, which sets forth the requirements for various types of administrative rulings. Specifically, subpart B of part 177 applies to the issuance of country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations relating to government procurement for purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in U.S. law and practice for products from eligible countries. As noted in 19 CFR 177.21, the subpart is intended to be applied consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1) and the Defense Acquisition Regulations System (48 CFR chapter 2). It is also noted that Chapter 13 of the USMCA provides that the United States will apply the same rules of origin to Mexican imports for government procurement as it does for other trade. The United States has the same obligation to Canada under Article IV:5 of the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. While the substantial transformation standard already applies by statute (19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B)), CBP's proposed application of the part 102 rules to make these substantial transformation determinations would ensure the consistency of CBP determinations for goods imported from Mexico and Canada. The proposed regulatory change will specifically provide that, when making country of origin determinations for purposes of subpart B of part 177, the part 102 rules will be applied by CBP to determine whether goods imported into the United States from Canada or Mexico previously underwent a substantial transformation in Canada or Mexico. The proposed regulatory change would not affect the origin determinations other agencies make related to procurement.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 4535(a), the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to implement the USMCA. Section 103(b)(1) of the USMCA Act (19 U.S.C. 4513(b)(1)) requires that initial regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out the actions required by or authorized under the USMCA Act or proposed in the Statement of Administrative Action approved under 19 U.S.C. 4511(a)(2) to implement the USMCA shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be prescribed within one year after the date on which the USMCA enters into force. The Secretary also has general rulemaking authority, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1304 and 1624, to make such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, related to the country of origin requirements for imported articles of foreign origin. The Secretary also has authority under 19 U.S.C. 1502 to regulate the procedures for issuing binding rulings, and 19 U.S.C. 2515(b)(1) requires the Secretary to make rulings and determinations as to
CBP is proposing to amend the scope provision in 19 CFR part 102 to apply the substantial transformation standard consistently across country of origin determinations CBP makes for imported goods from the USMCA countries of Canada and Mexico for non-preferential purposes.
CBP is also proposing to amend subpart B of 19 CFR part 177 to add a cross-reference to clarify that, for “country of origin” in § 177.22(a), the determination pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2515(b)(1) as to whether an article has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed, for purposes of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions, must be made using the rules set forth in §§ 102.1 through 102.18 and 102.20 of title 19 of the CFR for goods from Canada and Mexico.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rulemaking is a “significant regulatory action,” although not an economically significant regulatory action, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this regulation.
All merchandise of foreign origin imported into the United States must generally be marked with its country of origin, and it is subject to a country of origin determination by CBP.
CBP applies two methods for determining the country of origin of imports for non-preferential purposes, as stated above. One method involves case-by-case adjudication to determine whether the goods have been substantially transformed in a particular country, relying primarily on judicial precedent and past administrative rulings. The other method consists of codified rules in part 102 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 102) (referred to as the part 102 rules), which are also used to determine whether the goods have been substantially transformed, but are primarily expressed through specific changes in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) classification, often referred to as a “tariff shift.” Both the case-by-case and tariff shift methods implement the substantial transformation standard and are intended to lead to the same result.
Prior to the USMCA, under the NAFTA, country of origin marking determinations were made using the NAFTA marking rules codified in 19 CFR part 102 that specify whether a good imported from Canada or Mexico that is not entirely of Canadian or Mexican origin has been substantially transformed through processes that resulted in changes in the tariff classification (
The USMCA, which recently superseded the NAFTA, was generally silent as to how the country of origin should be determined for goods imported from Canada and Mexico for marking and other non-preferential purposes. However, CBP is concurrently publishing an IFR in this issue of the
With this regulatory change, all non-preferential country of origin determinations by CBP for goods imported from Canada or Mexico would be based on substantial transformation pursuant to the tariff shift rules required by 19 CFR part 102. This would eliminate the need for some importers of products from Canada or Mexico to request two different non-preferential determinations—one for country of origin marking and one for case-by-case adjudication for other non-preferential purposes—to confirm CBP's treatment of their imports and avoid potentially different determinations. The rulemaking would also eliminate the need for some importers to comply with requirements to declare two different countries of origin for the same imported good (
This rulemaking would directly affect certain importers of goods from Canada and Mexico and the U.S. Government (particularly CBP). In fiscal year (FY) 2019, 38,832 importers
In the future, CBP projects that around 38,832 importers would continue to make around 2.6 million entries of goods from Canada and Mexico that are subject to non-preferential trade treatment, with or without this rule, each year. An unknown share of these importers would enter goods subject to non-marking-related non-preferential treatment. CBP also projects that about 52 case-by-case non-preferential country of origin determinations would be requested and issued each year in the absence of this rulemaking based on the historical number of case-by-case adjudications. This rulemaking would eliminate such case-by-case determination requests and the issuance of such rulings.
This rulemaking may introduce changes in non-preferential payments from importers to the U.S. Government. In addition, there may be minimal costs for some importers, as discussed in this section. Changing from case-by-case adjudications for other non-preferential origin purposes to part 102's tariff shift rules may impose some costs on importers with goods from Canada and Mexico. Importers who switch from using these two determination methods for non-preferential origin purposes to just the part 102 rules with this rulemaking may, for example, incur some one-time, minor costs to adjust their inventory tracking systems and Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) entries to reflect the part 102-based non-marking, non-preferential country of origin for their goods in those cases where origin determinations under the current practice have been inconsistent.
In addition to costs, applying the part 102 (tariff shift) rules of origin rather than case-by-case adjudications to determine the origin for other non-preferential purposes could lead to trade policy outcomes different from historical and current practice. If an importer's goods are subject to inconsistent origin determinations under the current practice, this proposed rule may lead to a change in non-preferential payments from importers to the U.S. Government, which would result in an equal change in U.S. Government revenue. The number of instances where an importer would receive a different non-preferential country of origin determination under this rulemaking compared to current practice would likely be low, especially considering both methods apply the same substantial transformation standard and are intended to reach the same results. The specific effects of these different determinations on revenue are unknown. Any change in payments from importers to the U.S. Government as a result of this rulemaking are considered transfers rather than costs or benefits as they are moving money from one part of society to another.
Besides costs and revenue impacts, this rulemaking would introduce benefits to importers and the U.S. Government. Importers must exercise reasonable care when determining the country of origin for their goods, which can include researching previous case-by-case adjudications on substantial transformation. This rulemaking would enhance the consistency of country of origin marking and non-preferential country of origin determinations for goods imported from Canada and Mexico. All determinations made by CBP would be based on substantial transformation through application of the part 102 rules. This change would allow importers of goods from Canada and Mexico to comply with just one non-preferential country of origin determination made by CBP for their goods rather than two.
The overall benefit to importers of complying with just one country of origin determination method from CBP for their goods from Canada and Mexico is unknown. Some importers who require CBP ruling requests to determine the country of origin for non-preferential purposes would enjoy greater benefits from the transition to just one non-preferential determination method. As previously described, importers of goods from Canada and Mexico must currently request two country of origin rulings from CBP if they cannot determine the country of origin for non-preferential purposes—one for country of origin marking and one for case-by-case adjudication for other non-preferential purposes. CBP estimates that a case-by-case determination request takes an importer at least 8 hours on average to request, at a time cost of $250.96 per request according to an importer's average hourly time value of $31.37.
Furthermore, CBP's country of origin determinations sometimes result in an imported good being determined to be a product of Canada or Mexico for some customs purposes and a good of a third country for other purposes. This rulemaking would eliminate these different determinations, which would standardize country of origin determinations for non-preferential purposes for goods imported from the USMCA countries of Canada and Mexico. CBP's application of the part 102 rules would not, however, affect similar determinations made by other agencies, such as the Department of Commerce's scope determinations in antidumping or countervailing duty proceedings (
As previously stated, CBP issued 52 non-preferential determinations adjudicated on a case-by-case basis for goods imported from Canada and Mexico from October 2019 to December 2020. This rulemaking would eliminate the need for CBP to make such case-by-case determinations for similar goods imported from Canada and Mexico in the future. The current method for CBP to determine country of origin on a case-by-case basis for non-preferential purposes is generally more time and resource-intensive than the tariff-shift method. For CBP, country of origin determinations for non-preferential purposes based on case-by-case adjudications are highly individual, fact-intensive exercises. This rulemaking would largely make it easier for CBP to administer rules of origin for non-preferential country of origin determinations for goods imported from Canada and Mexico by employing the codified part 102 rules for both country of origin marking and other non-preferential purposes. By eliminating the need for importers to request non-preferential case-by-case determinations of their goods from Canada and Mexico, CBP would save an average of 5 hours to 40 hours currently dedicated to each case-by-case adjudication. This would translate to a time cost saving of between $494.90 and $3,959.20 based on a CBP attorney's average hourly time value of $98.98.
In summary, this rulemaking would introduce costs, revenue changes, and benefits to importers and the U.S. Government. Some importers, for example, whose goods are subject to inconsistent origin determinations under the current practice, may incur minor costs to adjust their inventory tracking systems, ACE entries, and business practices to reflect the new country of origin determination for other non-preferential purposes, as described above. Transitioning to the proposed tariff shift system could also lead to an increase or decrease in non-preferential payments from importers, which would lead to an equal increase or decrease in revenue to the U.S. Government. The exact amounts of these costs and revenue changes are unknown, but they should be small considering the tariff shift methodology implements the same substantial transformation standard as the existing case-by-case method. Additionally, the rule would implement a simpler, standardized administration system for country of origin determinations made by CBP for all non-preferential purposes for goods imported from Canada and Mexico that would save importers and the U.S. Government time and resources. Importers could save at least an estimated $13,050 in time costs annually from this rulemaking, while the U.S. Government could save between $25,735 and $205,878 in time costs each year. Overall, CBP believes this rulemaking's benefits would outweigh the costs.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
This rulemaking proposes to expand the scope of the 19 CFR part 102 rules to provide that those rules are to be generally applicable to all non-preferential country of origin determinations made by CBP for goods imported from the USMCA countries of Canada and Mexico. With this change,
In FY 2019, 38,832 importers
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not specify thresholds for economic significance but instead gives agencies flexibility to determine the appropriate threshold for a particular rule. Changing from case-by-case adjudications for other non-preferential origin purposes to part 102's tariff shift rules may impose some costs on importers with goods from Canada and Mexico. Importers who switch from using these two determination methods for non-preferential origin purposes to just the part 102 rules with this rulemaking may incur some one-time, minor costs to adjust their inventory tracking systems and Automated Commercial Environment entries to reflect the part 102-based non-marking-related, non-preferential country of origin for their goods. As an example, if an importer has an inventory tracking system that identifies the non-marking, non-preferential country of origin for its goods from Canada and Mexico based on existing case-by-case adjudication rules, with this rulemaking, that importer may need to revise the system to ensure that it identifies the goods based on the part 102 rules if the importer is importing goods subject to inconsistent origin determinations under the current practice. These determinations should match the country of origin determinations that importers must already make for non-preferential marking purposes. According to representatives of the Commercial Operations Advisory Committee, these costs will be approximately $2,000-$3,000 per company.
Some importers who source the same goods from Canada or Mexico and another country may also need to adjust their business practices to ensure that they properly use the part 102 rules for customs non-preferential country of origin purposes when the good is sourced from Canada or Mexico once this rulemaking is in effect and use case-by-case adjudications for any goods sourced outside of Canada or Mexico that are subject to non-preferential treatment. According to representatives of the Commercial Operations Advisory Committee, these costs are minimal. For mid to large companies, these costs would total at most $2,000 to $3,000 (note that this is in addition to a similar estimate above). Smaller companies would have smaller costs.
CBP does not believe that these costs, a maximum of $4,000-$6,000, would have a significant economic impact on importers, including those considered small under the RFA. The annual value of importations average $4 million per importer, so these one-time costs make up less than one percent of the value of their importations. In addition, trade members have expressed that the non-monetized benefits of operating under a single set of rules well outweigh the minimal costs to comply with this rulemaking. Therefore, CBP certifies that this rulemaking, if finalized, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. CBP welcomes comments on this conclusion.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that CBP consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. CBP has determined that there is no collection of information that requires a control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rulemaking is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1), pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or that of his or her delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.
Canada, Customs duties and inspections, Imports, Mexico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons given above, it is proposed to amend parts 102 and 177 as set forth below:
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624, 3592, 4513.
* * * For goods imported into the United States from Canada or Mexico and entered for consumption, or
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1502, 1624, 1625, 2515.
(a) * * * (For goods imported into the United States after processing in Canada or Mexico and entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], substantial transformation will be determined using the rules set forth in §§ 102.1 through 102.18 and 102.20.)
Troy A. Miller, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Robert F. Altneu, who is the Director of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division for CBP, for purposes of publication in the
Approved:
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is proposing to revise the rules of practice for submitting biological sequence data associated with disclosures of nucleotide and amino acid sequences in patent applications by incorporating by reference the provisions of Standard ST.26 into the USPTO rules. Other conforming changes to accommodate for proposed new rules of practice based on the new standard are also included. These proposed amendments would apply to international and national applications filed on or after January 1, 2022. In addition to simplifying the process for applicants filing in multiple countries, a requirement to submit a single sequence listing in eXtensible Mark-up Language (XML) format will result in better preservation, accessibility, and sorting of the submitted sequence data for the public.
Comments must be received by September 7, 2021 to ensure consideration.
For reasons of Government efficiency, comments must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal website (
Mary C. Till, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patents, by email at
Standard ST.26 is the new international standard developed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and member states and adopted by the same. Under Standard ST.26, patent applications that contain disclosures of nucleotides and/or amino acid sequence(s) must present
The proposed rule changes include: (1) Creation of new rules (§§ 1.831 through 1.835) to incorporate by reference Standard ST.26; (2) use of INSDC sequence data elements to replace numeric identifiers from the previous standard; (3) modification of rules of practice to include reference to “Sequence Listing XML;” (4) elimination of a paper or PDF copy of the sequence listing; (5) elimination of the option to include within a sequence listing sequences with fewer than 4 amino acids and fewer than 10 nucleotides; and (6) clarification and simplification of the rules to aid in understanding of the requirements that they set forth.
The sequence rules (37 CFR 1.821 through 1.825) provide a standardized format for description of nucleotide and amino acid sequence data in patent applications and require the submission of such sequences in computer readable form (CRF). The current USPTO rules are based on WIPO Standard ST.25, which became effective in 1998, and use a flat file structure of numeric identifiers using a limited set of character codes. A new international standard, ST.26, was agreed upon by WIPO member states, and would apply to international and national applications filed on or after January 1, 2022. Applications pending prior to January 1, 2022, would not have to comply with Standard ST.26.
In an effort to streamline and reduce the procedural requirements found in the existing rules, and to respond to the needs of our customers to conform to Standard ST.26, the USPTO is proposing to amend its rules of practice for submitting biological sequence data associated with disclosures of nucleotide and amino acid sequences in patent applications filed on or after January 1, 2022, to comply with Standard ST.26.
To decrease the burden on applicants who file applications containing nucleotide and amino acid sequence information internationally, the USPTO has worked with other WIPO member states as part of the Committee on WIPO Standards (CWS) to develop a single internationally acceptable sequence listing standard for use in patent applications filed in those states. Beginning in October of 2010, the CWS established a Task Force to propose a revised standard for the filing of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listings in XML file format (hereinafter referred to as a “Sequence Listing XML”). In order to obtain public input on the content of Standard ST.26, the USPTO issued Requests for Comments in 2012 and 2016 (“Request for Comments on the Recommendation for the Disclosure of Sequence Listings Using XML (Proposed ST.26).” (See 77 FR 28541 (May 15, 2012)) and “Standard ST.26-Request for Comments on the Recommended Standard for the Presentation of Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequence Listings using XML (eXtensible Markup Language).” (See 81 FR 74775 (October 27, 2016))). The adopted version of Standard ST.26 takes those comments into account. To achieve the goals that WIPO and WIPO member states (including the United States) set out by developing the sequence listing standard for presenting data consistently across all IPOs, all WIPO member states agreed to implement ST.26 for international and national applications filed on or after January 1, 2022. Therefore, upon finalizing the proposed rules, applications filed electronically in the United States on or after January 1, 2022, would need to conform to Standard ST.26, which requires submitting sequence listings in XML format. The USPTO is further proposing that applications that claim benefit or priority to an earlier application, where the earlier application contained a sequence listing that complied with the Standard ST.25 sequence rules, comply with the new rules that incorporate by reference Standard ST.26. In order to facilitate compliance, WIPO Sequence, a sequence listing authoring and validating tool, has been developed by WIPO with input from WIPO member states so that applicants can use it to prepare and validate their sequence listings in XML format as discussed
To ensure that biological sequence data associated with the disclosures of nucleotides and/or amino acid sequence(s) in patent applications can be widely disseminated and searchable by the public and IPOs, the USPTO works with the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) for inclusion of patent sequence data in the GenBank searchable database. For NCBI to include all sequence data from the USPTO, the data must be provided in INSDC format so that it is compatible with GenBank. The Standard ST.25 format sequence listings cannot be readily converted to INSDC format, resulting in only a fraction of patent sequence information appearing in GenBank. This data loss limits the sequence information provided to the public and exchanged with other sequence database providers,
The WIPO “Handbook on Industrial Property Information and Documentation” sets forth standards for the presentation of data in many contexts. Standard ST.26 is titled “Recommended Standard for the Presentation of Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequence Listings Using XML (eXtensible Markup Language).” Adoption of the current version, version 1.4, by the CWS, occurred in December of 2020 and reaffirms that January 1, 2022, is expected to be the implementation date for all WIPO member states. The proposed USPTO rules incorporate by reference Standard ST.26.
The adopted version of Standard ST.26 is composed of eight documents, namely, the main body of the Standard, a first annex setting forth the controlled vocabulary for use with the main body, a second annex setting forth the Document Type Definition (DTD) for the Standard, a third annex containing a sequence listing specimen, a fourth annex setting forth the character subset from the Unicode Basic Latin Code Table, a fifth annex setting forth additional data exchange requirements for IPOs, a sixth annex containing a guidance document, and a seventh annex setting forth recommendations for the transformation of a sequence listing from Standard ST.25 format to Standard ST.26 format including avoiding adding or deleting subject matter. These materials can be found at
Transitioning from rules based on Standard ST.25 (
Unlike rules based on Standard ST.25, rules based on Standard ST.26 will allow patent applicants to file a single sequence listing with the USPTO (with the exception of changes to comply with national language requirements) that will be acceptable to the IPOs of WIPO member states. Under Standard ST.25, IPOs have interpreted and enforced rules differently due to the imprecise language in the previous Standard. This has resulted in the frustrating situation where applicants generate sequence listings that may be accepted in one IPO but not another.
Standard ST.26 was drafted to precisely define what must and must not be included in a sequence listing, and how sequences must be represented in a sequence listing. The “Guidance document with illustrated examples” in Annex VI of Standard ST.26 illustrates the application of the rules to real-world sequence disclosure examples, eliminating the possibility of misinterpretation by IPOs or applicants.
Due to the improved data structure of XML, transitioning from the current USPTO rules based on Standard ST.25 to rules based on Standard ST.26 will have the effect of increasing the quality of examination of patent applications containing biological sequence data since a more comprehensive search will be possible. Sequence listings submitted in accordance with Standard ST.26 allow for targeted searching of both sequence annotation and newly required sequence types, such as D-amino acids, nucleotide analogues, and linear portions of branched sequences. Finally, sequence listing submissions under rules based on Standard ST.26 will enhance public database content, as they include the sequence annotations (
The USPTO recommends requiring compliance with Standard ST.26 for an application filed on or after January 1, 2022, because it will reduce the complexity and cost of long-term maintenance of IT systems for accepting sequence listings in multiple formats, provide a clear implementation date, and will facilitate transition to the format requirements of database providers. In addition, a requirement to submit a single sequence listing in XML format will result in better preservation, accessibility, and sorting of the submitted sequence data for the public. As noted herein, WIPO has created a tool to assist applicants with translation of existing sequences to the new standard.
To comply with rules that are based on Standard ST.26, patent applicants will be able to use “WIPO Sequence,” a freely-available desktop application developed by WIPO and adopted by WIPO member states, to generate a Standard ST.26 compliant sequence listing. WIPO Sequence has two functions: An authoring function and a validation function. Patent applicants will be able to author and validate their sequence listing using WIPO Sequence to comply with the requirements of Standard ST.26. Such a sequence listing will be accepted by all IPOs of WIPO member states. Thus, the burden of generating a sequence listing which is acceptable across all WIPO member states will be significantly decreased for patent applicants under Standard ST.26. This tool will be downloadable, free of charge, from the WIPO website. Currently, a beta version of WIPO Sequence is accessible at
WIPO Sequence will allow a user to create and save patent application data and biological sequence data in a project, validate the project to ensure all required information is present, and generate a sequence listing in Standard ST.26 XML format. Information can be entered into a project manually, or data can be imported from a source file in one of a number of file types. WIPO Sequence can import data from other Standard ST.26 projects, Standard ST.26 XML sequence listings, Standard ST.25 sequence listing text files, raw files, multi-sequence format files, and FASTA (FAST-All-a DNA and protein sequence alignment software package) files. Feature keys, qualifiers, and organism names are available to select from drop-down lists, simplifying the creation of sequence listings. Applicant and inventor names, as well as custom organism names, can be stored within WIPO Sequence for ease of access. To facilitate review of data entered into a project, WIPO Sequence can generate a “human-readable” version of the sequence listing in addition to the XML sequence listing.
WIPO Sequence includes an integrated validation function that will alert users to most errors in a project or sequence listing data. The validation function generates a report that clearly lists every detected error, the location of the error, and the detected value of the error, along with a link to the sequence in question, thereby ensuring users can correct errors before generating a final sequence listing. While the validation function will alert a user to most errors that are contained in a project or sequence listing, there are a small number of errors that can be detected only by human review (for example, an inappropriate organism name). In those cases, the integrated validation function will list a “warning” in the validation report, reminding users of the applicable/relevant rule and urging them to check their input values before generating a final sequence listing.
A sequence listing in Standard ST.25 format cannot automatically be converted into Standard ST.26 format because certain data elements required for a Standard ST.26 compliant sequence listing are not present in Standard ST.25. Therefore, conversion of a sequence listing in Standard ST.25 format to Standard ST.26 format necessarily requires additional input from the applicant. WIPO Sequence supplemented by significant guidance from WIPO and USPTO (in Annex VI and Annex VII of Standard ST.26) will help applicants accomplish this task. Users can import a Standard ST.25 sequence listing into a project, and WIPO Sequence automatically performs many of the necessary conversions. An Import Report is generated that alerts the user to all data conversions, and lists all sequence entries that require additional input. In response to concerns raised in comment to the USPTO's requests for comments in 2012 and 2016, the USPTO, in conjunction with WIPO, developed Annex VII to provide detailed guidance to help applicants avoid added or deleted subject matter when converting a sequence listing from Standard ST.25 format into Standard ST.26 format.
In order to ensure that IPOs can validate and accept sequence listing projects from applicants generated with WIPO Sequence, WIPO is developing a Standard ST.26 sequence listing validation tool, WIPO Sequence Validator. WIPO Sequence Validator will be for use by IPOs. WIPO Sequence Validator will be synchronized with the validation function in the WIPO Sequence tool. The USPTO is integrating WIPO Sequence Validator into its internal IT systems. The WIPO Sequence Validator will apply the same validation rules as WIPO Sequence. Therefore, filers will have a greater level of confidence that a sequence listing authored and validated by WIPO Sequence will comply with the USPTO rules for “Sequence Listing XMLs” (§§ 1.831 through 1.835) and accepted since the WIPO Sequence Validator that USPTO will use is based on Standard ST.26, which is incorporated by reference into the USPTO proposed rules of practice.
In accordance with these proposed rules of practice, an application that has a filing date on or after January 1, 2022, would be required to contain a sequence listing in accordance with proposed §§ 1.831 through 1.835, which incorporate by reference Standard ST.26. This includes applications that claim priority to applications with filing dates before January 1, 2022. Such applications include but are not limited to applications having one or more benefit or priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (claiming the benefit of a provisional), section 120 (claiming the benefit as a continuation and/or continuation-in-part), section 121 (claiming the benefit as a divisional), section 365 (claiming the benefit as a continuation or continuation in part to a PCT application), or section 119(a)-(d) (claiming the benefit to a foreign filed application or a prior filed PCT). If a prior application to which benefit or priority is claimed contains a sequence listing in Standard ST.25 format, the applicant would be required to convert that sequence listing to Standard ST.26 format for inclusion in the new application filed on or after January 1, 2022. As provided in 35 U.S.C. 363, the filing date of an international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371. Accordingly, for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 371, compliance with Standard ST.26 is based on the international filing date of the corresponding international application, rather than the date of submission of the national stage application in the USPTO. The proposed rules would also be applicable to applications for reissue without
Relying on the actual filing date of an application to determine whether a sequence listing must conform to §§ 1.821 through 1.825 (rules based on Standard ST.25) or §§ 1.831 through 1.835 (rules based on Standard ST.26) will simplify the application of the sequence rules, both for the USPTO and the applicant.
Section 1.52(e)(3)(iv) is proposed to be added to require that the contents of each read-only optical disc for a “Sequence Listing XML” must be in XML file format and, if compressed, must be compressed in accordance with § 1.834.
Section 1.52(e)(7) was proposed to be amended in another rulemaking that published at 86 FR 28301 (May 26, 2021). This proposed rule would further amend that paragraph to require that any amendment to the information on a read-only optical disc submitted in relation to a “Sequence Listing XML” be in accordance with § 1.835(b).
Section 1.52(f)(1) was proposed to be amended in another rulemaking that published at 86 FR 28301 (May 26, 2021). This proposed rule would further amend that paragraph to indicate that any XML file submitted on a read-only optical disc is excluded from the application size fee determination if the read-only optical disc contains a “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with § 1.831(a). The provision at 35 U.S.C 41(a)(1)(G) provides the basis for excluding “any sequence listing,” when filed in electronic medium, from the application size fee determination. A “Sequence Listing XML” is considered “any sequence listing.”
Section 1.52(f)(1)(i) was proposed to be added in another rulemaking that published at 86 FR 28301 (May 26, 2021). This proposed rule would further amend that paragraph to reference any “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with § 1.831(a).
Section 1.52(f)(2) was proposed to be amended in another rulemaking that published at 86 FR 28301 (May 26, 2021). This proposed rule would further amend that paragraph to indicate that any XML file, submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system for a “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with § 1.831(a) is excluded from the application size fee determination. The provision at 35 U.S.C 41(a)(1)(G) provides the basis for excluding “any sequence listing” when filed in electronic medium from the application size fee determination. A “Sequence Listing XML” is considered “any sequence listing.”
Section 1.52(f)(2)(i) was proposed to be added in another rulemaking that published at 86 FR 28301 (May 26, 2021). This proposed rule would further amend that paragraph to reference any “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with § 1.831(a).
Section 1.52(f)(3) was proposed to be added in another rulemaking that published at 86 FR 28301 (May 26, 2021). This proposed rule would further amend that paragraph to subject any “Sequence Listing XML” of 300MB-800MB to the surcharge set forth in § 1.21(o)(1) and any “Sequence Listing XML” over 800MB to the surcharge set forth in § 1.21(o)(2).
Section 1.121(b)(6) was proposed to be added in another rulemaking that published at 86 FR 28301 (May 26, 2021). This proposed rule would further amend that paragraph to require that changes to a “Sequence Listing XML” be made in accordance with § 1.835.
Section 1.173(b)(1)(i) was proposed to be added in another rulemaking that published at 86 FR 28301 (May 26, 2021). This proposed rule would further amend that paragraph to add an exception to reissue amendment practice for a ` “Sequence Listing XML' (§ 1.831(a)).”
Section 1.173(b)(1)(ii) was proposed to be added in another rulemaking that published at 86 FR 28301 (May 26, 2021). This proposed rule would further amend that paragraph to provide that changes to a “Sequence Listing XML” must be made in accordance § 1.835.
Section 1.173(d) was proposed to be amended in another rulemaking that published at 86 FR 28301 (May 26, 2021). This proposed rule would further amend that paragraph to also exclude a “Sequence Listing XML” from the manner of making amendments in a reissue application.
Section 1.530(d)(1)(i) was proposed to be added in another rulemaking that published at 86 FR 28301 (May 26, 2021). This proposed rule would further amend that paragraph to add an exception to reexamination amendment practice for a ` “Sequence Listing XML' (§ 1.831(a)).”
Section 1.530(d)(1)(ii) was proposed to be added in another rulemaking that published at 86 FR 28301 (May 26, 2021). This proposed rule would further amend that paragraph to provide that changes to a “Sequence Listing XML” must be made in accordance with § 1.835.
Section 1.831(a) is proposed to be added to specify that the “Sequence Listing XML” uses the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of §§ 1.832 through 1.834.
Section 1.831(b)(1) and (2) are proposed to be added to define the nucleotide and amino acid sequences that are encompassed by the rule for which a “Sequence Listing XML” is needed. Specifically, nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences as used in these proposed rules encompass: An unbranched sequence or linear region of a branched sequence containing four or more specifically defined amino acids, wherein the amino acids form a single peptide backbone or an unbranched sequence or linear region of a branched sequence of 10 or more specifically defined nucleotides, wherein adjacent nucleotides are joined by: A 3' to 5' (or 5' to 3') phosphodiester linkage or, for nucleotide analogs, any chemical bond that results in an arrangement of adjacent nucleobases that mimics the arrangement of nucleobases in naturally occurring nucleic acids.
Section 1.831(c) is proposed to be added to state that, where the description or claims of a patent application discuss a sequence that is set forth in the “Sequence Listing XML” in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, reference must be made to the sequence by use of the sequence identifier, preceded by SEQ ID NO: Or the like in the text of the description or claims, even if the sequence is also embedded in the text of the description or claims of the patent application. The use of SEQ ID NO: Is preferred but including “or the like” is intended to ensure that a formalities notice is not sent when an application uses, for example, “SEQ NO.” or “Seq. Id. No.” or any similar identification of an amino acid or nucleotide sequence in the specification or claims where it is clear that a sequence from the “Sequence Listing XML” is shown in the specification or claims. In identifying the sequence in the description or claims, the numeric sequence identifier from the “Sequence Listing XML” must be identifying the same sequence.
Section 1.831(d) is proposed to be added to define the expression “enumeration of its residues,” consistent with the definition in Paragraph 3(c) of WIPO Standard ST.26 itself (which is incorporated by reference herein).
Section 1.831(e) is proposed to be added to define the expression “specifically defined,” consistent with the definition in Paragraph 3(m) of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020).
Section 1.831(f) is proposed to be added to define the expression “amino acid,” consistent with the definition in Paragraph 3(a) of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020).
Section 1.831(g) is proposed to be added to define the expression “modified amino acid,” consistent with the definition in Paragraph 3(g) of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020).
Section 1.831(h) is proposed to be added to define the expression “nucleotide,” consistent with Paragraphs 3(h) and 3(i) of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020).
Section 1.831(i) is proposed to be added to define the expression “modified nucleotide,” consistent with Paragraph 3(h) of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020).
Section 1.832(a) is proposed to be added to define the requirements for representation of sequences in a “Sequence Listing XML” part of the application. Specifically, each nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence presented in the “Sequence Listing XML” must be assigned a separate sequence identifier, and the sequence identifiers must begin with the number 1, and increase sequentially by integers as defined in Paragraph 10 of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020).
Section 1.832(b)(1) through (4) are proposed to be added to define the requirements for representation of nucleotide sequence data in the “Sequence Listing XML.” Specifically, a nucleotide sequence must be represented in the manner described in Paragraphs 11-12 of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020). All nucleotides, including nucleotide analogs, modified nucleotides, “unknown” nucleotides in a nucleotide sequence must be represented and described using symbols in the manner described in Paragraphs 13-19 and 21 of WIPO
Section 1.832(c)(1) through (4) are proposed to be added to define the requirements for representation of amino acid sequence data in the “Sequence Listing XML.” Specifically, an amino acid sequence must be represented in the manner described in Paragraphs 24-25 of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020). All amino acids, including modified amino acids and “unknown” amino acids, in an amino acid sequence must be represented and described using symbols in the manner described in Paragraphs 24-30 and 32 of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020). For a region containing a known number of contiguous “X” residues for which the same description applies, the entire region may be jointly described as provided in Paragraph 34 of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020).
Section 1.832(d) is proposed to be added to define the manner in which a single continuous sequence, derived from one or more non-contiguous segments of a larger sequence, or from segments of different sequences, must be represented, as described in Paragraph 35 of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020).
Section 1.832(e) is proposed to be added to define the manner in which a nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence that contains regions of specifically defined residues separated by one or more regions of contiguous “n” or “X” residues of specified length must be represented, as described in Paragraph 36 of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020).
Section 1.832(f) is proposed to be added to define the manner in which nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence that contains regions of specifically defined residues separated by one or more gaps of an unknown or undisclosed number of residues must be represented, as described in Paragraph 37 of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020).
Section 1.833(a) is proposed to be added to require that the “Sequence Listing XML” must be presented as a single XML 1.0 file and encoded using Unicode UTF-8.
Section 1.833(b)(1) is proposed to be added to require that the “Sequence Listing XML” must be valid according to the DTD as presented in Annex II of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020).
Section 1.833(b)(2) is proposed to be added to require that a “Sequence Listing XML” must comply with the list of items enumerated in (i)-(v) which are found in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020).
Section 1.833(b)(2)(i) is proposed to be added to require that the “Sequence Listing XML” contain an XML declaration as defined in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), Paragraph 39.
Section 1.833(b)(2)(ii) is proposed to be added to require that the “Sequence Listing XML” contain a document type declaration as defined in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), Paragraph 39.
Section 1.833(b)(2)(iii) is proposed to be added to require that the “Sequence Listing XML” contain a root element as defined in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), Paragraph 43.
Section 1.833(b)(2)(iv) is proposed to be added to require that the “Sequence Listing XML” contain a general information part that complies with WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), Paragraphs 45, 47 and 48, as applicable.
Section 1.833(b)(2)(v) is proposed to be added to require that the “Sequence Listing XML” contain a sequence data part that complies with WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), Paragraphs 50-55, 57-58, 60-69, 71-78, 80-87, 89-98 and 100, as applicable.
Section 1.833(b)(3) is proposed to be added to require that the “Sequence Listing XML” contains at least one InventionTitle element, as set forth in WIPO Standard ST.26 at Paragraphs 45 and 48, in the English language since English is required under § 1.52(b)(1)(ii).
Section 1.833(b)(4) is proposed to be added to require that an INSDQualifier_value element includes a value for that element in the English language for each language-dependent free text qualifier in the “Sequence Listing XML,” as required by § 1.52(b)(1)(ii), and where an INSDQualifier_value element is defined in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), Paragraphs 76 and 85-88.
Section 1.834(a) is proposed to be added to indicate that a “Sequence Listing XML” in Unicode UTF-8 created by any means (
Section 1.834(b) is proposed to be added to require that the “Sequence Listing XML” must be in a single file containing the sequence information and be submitted either: (1) Electronically via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, where the file size must not exceed 100 MB and file compression is not permitted; or (2) on read-only optical disc(s) in compliance with § 1.52(e), where (i) a file that is not compressed must be contained on a single read-only optical disc, (ii) the file may be compressed using WinZip®, 7-Zip, or Unix®/Linux® Zip, (iii) a compressed file must not be self-extracting, and (iv) a compressed XML file that does not fit on a single read-only optical disc may be split into multiple file parts in accordance with the target read-only optical disc size and labeled in compliance with § 1.52(e)(5)(vi).
Section 1.835(a) is proposed to be added to require that any amendment to a patent application adding an initial submission of a “Sequence Listing XML” as required by § 1.831(a) after the application filing date must include: (1) A “Sequence Listing XML” file submitted either (i) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or (ii) on a read-only optical disc in compliance with § 1.52(e); (2) an instruction to amend the specification to include an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the “Sequence Listing XML” file, identifying the name of the file, the date of creation, and the size of the file in bytes (see § 1.77(b)(5)(ii)), except when submitted to the United States International Preliminary Examining Authority for an
Section 1.835(b) is proposed to be added to require that any amendment adding to, deleting from or replacing sequence information in a “Sequence Listing XML” submitted as required by § 1.831(a) must include: (1) A replacement “Sequence Listing XML” containing the entire “Sequence Listing XML,” including any additions, deletions, or replacements of sequence information, and shall be submitted either (i) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, or (ii) on a read-only optical disc, in compliance with § 1.52(e) labeled as “REPLACEMENT MM/DD/YYYY” (with the month, day, and year of creation indicated); (2) an instruction to amend the specification to include an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the replacement “Sequence Listing XML” file that identifies the name of the file, the date of creation, and the size of the file in bytes (see § 1.77(b)(5)(ii)), except when the replacement “Sequence Listing XML” is submitted to the United States International Preliminary Examining Authority for an international application; (3) a statement that identifies the location of all additions, deletions or replacements of sequence information relative to the replaced “Sequence Listing XML”; (4) a statement that indicates the support for the additions, deletions or replacements of the sequence information, with specific references to particular parts of the application as originally filed (specification, claims, drawings) for all amended sequence data in the replacement “Sequence Listing XML”; and (5) a statement that the replacement “Sequence Listing XML” includes no new matter.
Section 1.835(c) is proposed to be added to require that the specification of a complete application with a “Sequence Listing XML” as required under § 1.831(a) present on the application filing date but without an incorporation by reference of the material contained in the “Sequence Listing XML” file must be amended to contain a separate paragraph incorporating by reference the material contained in the “Sequence Listing XML” file, in accordance with § 1.77(b)(5)(ii), except for international applications.
Section 1.835(d)(1) is proposed to be added to provide that when any of the requirements of §§ 1.831 through 1.834 is not satisfied in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or in a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to comply with such requirements in order to prevent abandonment of the application. The proposed rule indicates that subject to § 1.835(d)(2), any amendment to add or replace a “Sequence Listing XML” in reply to a requirement under this paragraph must be submitted in accordance with the requirements of § 1.835(a) through (c).
Section 1.835(d)(2) is proposed to be added to explicitly provide that compliance with § 1.835(a) through (c) is not required for submission of a “Sequence Listing XML” that is solely an English translation of a previously submitted “Sequence Listing XML” that contains non-English values for the invention title (as per § 1.833(b)(3)) and/or any language-dependent free text elements (as per § 1.833(b)(4)). The required submission will be a translated “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with §§ 1.831 through 1.834. Updated values for attributes in the root element (§ 1.833(b)(2)(iii)) or elements of the general information part (§ 1.833(b)(2)(iv)) are not considered amendments for purposes of complying with § 1.835(a) through (c). Even though §§ 1.52(b)(1)(ii) and 1.495(c)(1)(i) require a translation for applications filed under 111(a) and for those entering the national stage, respectively, this proposed rule makes explicit that when a translated “Sequence Listing XML” is provided as a reply to a notice that the “Sequence Listing XML” contains non-English values for the invention title and/or any language-dependent free text elements, and the translation does not include deletions, additions or replacement of sequence information, the translated “Sequence Listing XML” need not comply with the requirements for an amended “Sequence Listing XML” as set forth in § 1.835(a) through (c).
Section 1.835(e) is proposed to be added to provide that when any of the requirements of §§ 1.831 through 1.834 are not satisfied at the time of filing an international application under the PCT where the application is to be searched by the United States International Searching Authority or examined by the United States International Preliminary Examining Authority, the applicant may be sent a notice calling for compliance with the requirements within a prescribed time period. Under PCT Rule 13
Section 1.835(f) is proposed to be added to provide that any appropriate amendments to the “Sequence Listing XML” in a patent (
Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for the changes proposed in this rulemaking are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), or any other law. See
For the reasons set forth herein, the Senior Counsel for Regulatory and Legislative Affairs of the USPTO has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The USPTO proposes to amend the rules of practice to require submission of biological sequence data in eXtensible Markup Language where the rules of practice incorporate by reference WIPO Standard ST.26, “Recommended Standard for the Presentation of Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequence Listings Using XML (eXtensible Markup Language)” as disclosed in the WIPO Handbook on Industrial Property Information and Documentation.
This rulemaking would make more technical data associated with biotechnology inventions available to the public because the new rules of practice based on WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020) provide for enhanced biological sequence data related to disclosures of nucleotides and amino acids in patent applications. WIPO Standard ST.26 provides clear rules as to what must be included in a sequence listing and how sequences must be represented, for example, standardization of representation of modified nucleic acids and amino acids as well as variants derived from primary sequences. WIPO Standard ST.26 contains a guidance document that demonstrates the requirement for inclusion and representation of biological sequence data. As a result, patent applicants will have a clearer understanding as to the requirements and presentation of biological sequence data in a compliant sequence listing under WIPO Standard ST.26. Additionally, since WIPO Standard ST.26 only allows XML format, applicants will not be burdened or confused with the requirements of filing a sequence listing in paper or PDF format, and IPOs will not be burdened with processing paper sequence listings and performing necessary checks on the contents of the paper documents. This rulemaking's proposed changes are largely procedural in nature, and do not impose any additional requirements or fees on applicants. For the foregoing reasons, the changes proposed in this NPRM will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Modifications to 0651-0024 because of this proposed rulemaking will be submitted to OMB for approval prior to this rule becoming effective. Modifications include the removal of the Sequence Listing in Application (paper), which will result in a reduction in burden associated with this information collection. The USPTO estimates that this information collection's annual burden will decrease by 5,000 responses and 30,000 burden hours. These burden estimates are based on the current OMB approved burdens (response volumes) associated with this information collection, which may be different from any forecasts mentioned in other parts of this proposed rule.
The changes discussed in this proposed rule do not affect the information collection requirements or burdens associated with 0651-0031, 0651-0032 and 0651-0064 listed above; therefore, the USPTO does not plan to take any additional actions on these information collections as a result of this rulemaking. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information has a currently valid OMB control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Biologics, Courts, Freedom of information, Incorporation by reference, Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority contained in 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the USPTO proposes to further amend 37 CFR part 1 (as proposed to be amended at 86 FR 28301 (May 26, 2021)) as follows:
35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) A “Sequence Listing” (submitted under § 1.821(c) in compliance with § 1.824) or a “Sequence Listing XML” (submitted under § 1.831(a) in compliance with §§ 1.832 through 1.834); or
(3) * * *
(iv) The contents of each read-only optical disc for a “Sequence Listing XML” must be in XML file format, and if compressed, must be compressed in accordance with § 1.834.
(7) Any amendment to the information on a read-only optical disc must be by way of a replacement read-only optical disc, in compliance with § 1.58(g) for “Large Tables,” § 1.96(c)(5) for a “Computer Program Listing Appendix,” § 1.825(b) for a “Sequence Listing” or Computer Readable Form (CRF) of a “Sequence Listing,” and § 1.835(b) for a “Sequence Listing XML.”
(f) * * *
(1)
(i) Any “Sequence Listing” or CRF of a “Sequence Listing” in compliance with § 1.821(c) or (e), or any “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with § 1.831(a); or
(2)
(i) Any “Sequence Listing” or CRF of a “Sequence Listing,” in compliance with § 1.821(c) or (e) or any “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with § 1.831(a); or
(3)
(c) * * *
(4) A provisional application is not entitled to the right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(a), or 386(a) or § 1.55, or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or § 1.78 of any other application. No claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or § 1.78(a) may be made in a design application based on a provisional application. A provisional application disclosing nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences is not required to include a separate sequence listing; however, if submitted in a provisional application filed on or after January 1, 2022, any submission of biological sequence data must be a “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with §§ 1.831 through 1.834.
(b) * * *
(5) An incorporation by reference statement regarding the material on the:
(i) One or more ASCII plain text files, submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or on one or more read-only optical discs (see § 1.52(e)(8)), identifying the names of each file, the date of creation of each file, and the size of each file in bytes, for the following document types:
(A) A “Computer Program Listing Appendix” (see § 1.96(c));
(B) A “Sequence Listing” (see § 1.821(c)); or
(C) “Large Tables” (see § 1.58(c)).
(ii) eXtensible Markup Language (XML) file of the Sequence Listing (“Sequence Listing XML”), submitted via an USPTO patent electronic filing system or on one or more read-only optical discs (see § 1.52(e)(8)), identifying the names of each file, the date of creation of each file, and the size of each file in bytes (§ 1.831(a)).
(b)
(6)
(b) * * *
(1)
(ii) Changes to “Large Tables,” a “Computer Program Listing Appendix,” a “Sequence Listing,” or a “Sequence Listing XML” must be made in accordance with § 1.58(g) for “Large Tables,” § 1.96(c)(5) for a “Computer Program Listing Appendix,” § 1.825 for a “Sequence Listing,” and § 1.835 for a “Sequence Listing XML”.
(d)
(c) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) will not be published until it includes the basic filing fee (§ 1.16(a) or (c)) and any English translation required by § 1.52(d). The Office may delay publishing any application until it includes any application size fee required by the Office under § 1.16(s) or § 1.492(j), a specification having papers in compliance with § 1.52 and an abstract (§ 1.72(b)), drawings in compliance with § 1.84, a “Sequence Listing” in compliance with §§ 1.821 through 1.825 (if applicable) for an application filed before January 1, 2022, a “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with §§ 1.831 through 1.835 (if applicable) for an application filed on or after January 1, 2022, and the inventor's oath or declaration or application data sheet containing the information specified in § 1.63(b).
(c) * * *
(5) Translations of a “Sequence Listing:” For international applications having an international filing date before January 1, 2022, a “Sequence Listing” need not be translated if the “Sequence Listing” complies with PCT Rule 12.1(d) and the description complies with PCT Rule 5.2(b). For international applications having an international filing date on or after January 1, 2022, for purposes of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, an English translation is required for any “Sequence Listing” in XML format containing non-English language values for the invention title/and or any language-dependent free text qualifiers in accordance with §§ 1.831 through 1.834.
(d) * * *
(1)
(ii) Changes to “Large Tables,” a “Computer Program Listing Appendix,” a “Sequence Listing,” or a “Sequence Listing XML” must be made, in accordance with § 1.58(g) for “Large Tables,” § 1.96(c)(5) for a “Computer Program Listing Appendix,” § 1.825 for a “Sequence Listing,” and § 1.835 for a “Sequence Listing XML.”
(f) An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) is in condition for examination when the application includes a specification, including at least one claim and an abstract (§ 1.72(b)), and has papers in compliance with § 1.52, drawings (if any) in compliance with § 1.84, any English translation required by § 1.52(d) or § 1.57(a), a sequence listing in compliance with §§ 1.821 through 1.825 (if applicable), a “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with §§ 1.831 through 1.835 (if applicable), an inventor's oath or declaration or an application data sheet containing the information specified in § 1.63(b), the basic filing fee (§ 1.16(a) or (c)), the search fee (§ 1.16(k) or (m)), the examination fee (§ 1.16(o) or (q)), any certified copy of the previously filed application required by § 1.57(a), and any application size fee required by the Office under § 1.16(s). An international application is in condition for examination when the application has entered the national stage as defined in § 1.491(b), and includes a specification, including at least one claim and an abstract (§ 1.72(b)), and has papers in compliance with § 1.52, drawings (if any) in compliance with § 1.84, a sequence listing in compliance with §§ 1.821 through 1.825 (if applicable), a “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with §§ 1.831 through 1.835 (if applicable), the inventor's oath or declaration or an application data sheet containing the information specified in § 1.63(b), the search fee (§ 1.492(b)), the examination fee (§ 1.492(c)), and any application size fee required by the Office under § 1.492(j). An application shall be considered as having papers in compliance with § 1.52, drawings (if any) in compliance with § 1.84, and a sequence listing in compliance with §§ 1.821 through 1.825 (if applicable) or a “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with §§ 1.831 through 1.835 (if applicable), for purposes of this paragraph (f) on the filing date of the latest reply (if any) correcting the papers, drawings, or sequence listing that is prior to the date of mailing of either an action under 35 U.S.C. 132 or a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151, whichever occurs first.
(a) Patent applications disclosing nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences by enumeration of their residues, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, must contain, as a separate part of the disclosure, a computer readable Sequence Listing in XML (eXtensible Markup Language) format (a “Sequence Listing XML”). Disclosed nucleotide or amino acid sequences that do not meet the definition of paragraph (b) of this section must not be included in the “Sequence Listing XML.” The “Sequence Listing XML” contains the sequence information of the nucleotides and/or amino acids disclosed in the patent application using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of §§ 1.832 through 1.834.
(b) Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences as used in §§ 1.831 through 1.835, encompass:
(1) An unbranched sequence or linear region of a branched sequence containing 4 or more specifically defined amino acids, wherein the amino acids form a single peptide backbone; or
(2) An unbranched sequence or linear region of a branched sequence of 10 or more specifically defined nucleotides, wherein adjacent nucleotides are joined by:
(i) A 3′ to 5′ (or 5′ to 3′) phosphodiester linkage; or
(ii) Any chemical bond that results in an arrangement of adjacent nucleobases that mimics the arrangement of nucleobases in naturally occurring nucleic acids, (
(c) Where the description or claims of a patent application discuss a sequence that is set forth in the “Sequence Listing XML” in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, reference must be made to the sequence by use of the sequence identifier, preceded by SEQ ID NO: Or the like in the text of the description or claims, even if the sequence is also embedded in the text of the description or claims of the patent application.
(d) “Enumeration of its residues” means disclosure of a nucleotide or amino acid sequence in a patent application by listing, in order, each residue of the sequence, where the residues are represented in the manner as defined in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020) (incorporated by reference, see § 1.839), paragraph 3(c)(i) or (ii).
(e) “Specifically defined” means any amino acid or nucleotide as defined in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraph 3(m).
(f) “Amino acid” includes any D- or L-amino acid or modified amino acid as defined in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraph 3(a).
(g) “Modified amino acid” includes any amino acid as described in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraph 3(g).
(h) “Nucleotide” includes any nucleotide, nucleotide analog or modified nucleotide as defined in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraphs 3(h) and 3(i).
(i) “Modified nucleotide” includes any nucleotide as described in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraph 3(h).
(a) Each disclosed nucleotide or amino acid sequence that meets the requirements of § 1.831(b) must appear separately in the “Sequence Listing XML”. Each sequence set forth in the “Sequence Listing XML” must be assigned a separate sequence identifier. The sequence identifiers must begin with 1 and increase sequentially by integers as defined in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020) (incorporated by reference, see § 1.839), paragraph 10.
(b) The representation and symbols for nucleotide sequence data shall conform to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) A nucleotide sequence must be represented in the manner described in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraphs 11-12.
(2) All nucleotides, including nucleotide analogs, modified nucleotides, and “unknown” nucleotides, within a nucleotide sequence must be represented using the symbols set forth in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraphs 13-16, 19 and 21.
(3) Modified nucleotides within a nucleotide sequence must be described in the manner discussed in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraphs 17-18, and 19.
(4) A region containing a known number of contiguous “a”, “c”, “g”, “t”, or “n” residues for which the same description applies may be jointly described in the manner described in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraph 22.
(c) The representation and symbols for amino acid sequence data shall conform to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The amino acids in an amino acid sequence must be represented in the manner described in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraphs 24-25.
(2) All amino acids, including modified amino acids and “unknown” amino acids, within an amino acid sequence must be represented using the symbols set forth in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraphs 26-29 and 32.
(3) Modified amino acid within an amino acid sequence must be described in the manner discussed in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraphs 29 and 30.
(4) A region containing a known number of contiguous “X” residues for which the same description applies may be jointly described in the manner described in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraph 34.
(d) A nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence that is constructed as a single continuous sequence derived from one or more non-contiguous segments of a larger sequence or from segments of different sequences must be listed in a sequence listing in the manner described in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraph 35.
(e) A nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence that contains regions of specifically defined residues separated by one or more regions of contiguous “n” or “X” residues, wherein the exact number of “n” or “X” residues in each region is disclosed, must be listed in a sequence listing in the manner described in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraph 36.
(f) A nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence that contains regions of specifically defined residues separated by one or more gaps of an unknown or undisclosed number of residues must be listed in a sequence listing in the manner described in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraph 37.
(a) The “Sequence Listing XML” as required by § 1.831(a) must be presented as a single file in XML 1.0 encoded using Unicode UTF-8 where the character set complies with WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020) (incorporated by reference, see § 1.839), paragraphs 40 and 41 and Annex IV
(b) The “Sequence Listing XML” as required by § 1.833(a) must:
(1) Be valid according to the Document Type Definition (DTD) as presented in Annex II of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020).
(2) Comply with the requirements of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020) to include:
(i) An XML declaration as defined in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraph 39;
(ii) A document type (DOCTYPE) declaration as defined in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraph 39;
(iii) A root element as defined in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraph 43;
(iv) A general information part that complies with the requirements of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraphs 45, 47 and 48, as applicable; and
(v) A sequence data part that complies with the requirements of WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraphs 50-55, 57-58, 60-69, 71-78, 80-87, 89-98 and 100, as applicable.
(3) Include one InventionTitle element in the English language, in the format required by WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraphs 45 and 48, and as required by § 1.52(b)(1)(ii).
(4) Include an INSDQualifier_value element with a value in the English language for any language-dependent free text qualifier as defined by WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020), paragraphs 76 and 85-88, and as required by § 1.52(b)(1)(ii).
(a) A “Sequence Listing XML” encoded using Unicode UTF-8, created by any means (
(1) Have the following compatibilities:
(i) Computer compatibility: PC or Mac®; and
(ii) Operating system compatibility: MS-DOS®, MS-Windows®, Mac OS®, or Unix®/Linux®.
(2) Be in XML format, where all permitted printable characters (including the space character) and non-printable (control) characters are defined in WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020) (incorporated by reference, see § 1.839), paragraph 40.
(3) Be named as *.xml, where “*” is one character or a combination of characters limited to upper- or lowercase letters, numbers, hyphens, and underscores and the name does not exceed 60 characters in total, excluding the extension. No spaces or other types of characters are permitted in the file name.
(b) The “Sequence Listing XML” must be in a single file containing the sequence information and be submitted either:
(1) Electronically via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, where the file size must not exceed 100 MB, and file compression is not permitted; or
(2) On read-only optical disc(s) in compliance with § 1.52(e), where:
(i) A file that is not compressed must be contained on a single read-only optical disc;
(ii) The file may be compressed using WinZip®, 7-Zip, or Unix®/Linux® Zip;
(iii) A compressed file must not be self-extracting; and
(iv) A compressed XML file that does not fit on a single read-only optical disc may be split into multiple file parts, in accordance with the target read-only
(a) Any amendment to a patent application adding an initial submission of a “Sequence Listing XML” as required by § 1.831(a) after the application filing date must include:
(1) A “Sequence Listing XML” in accordance with §§ 1.831 through 1.834, submitted as an XML file:
(i) Via the USPTO patent electronic filing system; or
(ii) On a read-only optical disc, in compliance with § 1.52(e);
(2) A request to amend the specification to include an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the “Sequence Listing XML” file, identifying the name of the file, the date of creation, and the size of the file in bytes (see § 1.77(b)(5)(ii)), except when submitted to the United States International Preliminary Examining Authority for an international application;
(3) A statement that indicates the basis for the amendment, with specific references to particular parts of the application as originally filed (specification, claims, drawings) for all sequence data in the “Sequence Listing XML;” and
(4) A statement that the “Sequence Listing XML” includes no new matter.
(b) Any amendment adding to, deleting from, or replacing sequence information in a “Sequence Listing XML” submitted as required by § 1.831(a) must include:
(1) A replacement “Sequence Listing XML” in accordance with the requirements of §§ 1.831 through 1.834 containing the entire “Sequence Listing XML” including any additions, deletions, or replacements of sequence information, and shall be submitted:
(i) Via the USPTO patent electronic filing system; or
(ii) On a read-only optical disc, in compliance with § 1.52(e) labeled as “REPLACEMENT MM/DD/YYYY” (with the month, day, and year of creation indicated);
(2) A request to amend the specification to include an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the replacement “Sequence Listing XML” file that identifies the name of the file, the date of creation, and the size of the file in bytes (see § 1.77(b)(5)(ii)), except when the replacement “Sequence Listing XML” is submitted to the United States International Preliminary Examining Authority for an international application;
(3) A statement that identifies the location of all additions, deletions, or replacements of sequence information relative to replaced “Sequence Listing XML;”
(4) A statement that indicates the support for the additions, deletions, or replacements of the sequence information, with specific references to particular parts of the application as originally filed (specification, claims, drawings) for all amended sequence data in the replacement “Sequence Listing XML;” and
(5) A statement that the replacement “Sequence Listing XML” includes no new matter.
(c) The specification of a complete application, filed on the application filing date, with a “Sequence Listing XML” as required under § 1.831(a), without an incorporation by reference of the material contained in the “Sequence Listing XML” file, must be amended to contain a separate paragraph incorporating by reference the material contained in the “Sequence Listing XML” file, in accordance with § 1.77(b)(5)(ii), except for international applications.
(d)(1) If any of the requirements of §§ 1.831 through 1.834 are not satisfied in an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or in a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to comply with such requirements in order to prevent abandonment of the application. Subject to paragraph (d)(2) of this section, any amendment to add or replace a “Sequence Listing XML” in reply to a requirement under this paragraph (d)(1) must be submitted in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(2) Compliance with paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section is not required for submission of a “Sequence Listing XML” that is solely an English translation of a previously submitted “Sequence Listing XML” that contains non-English values for the invention title (as per § 1.833(b)(3)) and/or any language-dependent free text elements (as per § 1.833(b)(4)). The required submission will be a translated “Sequence Listing XML” in compliance with §§ 1.831 through 1.834. Updated values for attributes in the root element (§ 1.833(b)(2)(iii)) or elements of the general information part (§ 1.833(b)(2)(iv)) are not considered amendments for purposes of complying with paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(e) If any of the requirements of §§ 1.831 through 1.834 are not satisfied at the time of filing an international application under the PCT where the application is to be searched by the United States International Searching Authority or examined by the United States International Preliminary Examining Authority, the applicant may be sent a notice necessitating compliance with the requirements within a prescribed time period. Under PCT Rule 13
(f) Any appropriate amendments to the “Sequence Listing XML” in a patent (
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart with the approval of the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Office of Patent Legal Administration, 571-272-7701, and from the sources listed elsewhere in this section. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
(b) World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); 34 chemin des Colombettes; 1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland,
(1) WIPO Standard ST.26 (2020). WIPO Handbook on Industrial Property Information and Documentation, Standard ST.26: Recommended
(2) [Reserved]
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
FMCSA proposes amendments to its Hazardous Materials Safety Permits regulations to incorporate by reference the updated Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) handbook containing inspection procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC) for inspections of shipments of transuranic waste and highway route controlled quantities of radioactive material. The OOSC provide enforcement personnel nationwide, including FMCSA's State partners, with uniform enforcement tolerances for inspections. Currently, the regulations reference the April 1, 2019, edition of the handbook. Through this document, FMCSA proposes to incorporate by reference the April 1, 2021 edition.
Comments on this document must be received on or before August 5, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA 2021-0063 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Mr. José Cestero, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-5541,
This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is organized as follows:
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0063), indicate the specific section of this document to which your 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.
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington DC 20590-0001. Any comments FMCSA receives which are not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the
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(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed rule is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.
This NPRM proposes to update an incorporation by reference found at 49 CFR 385.4(b)(1) and referenced at § 385.415(b). The provision at § 385.4(b)(1) currently references the April 1, 2019, edition of CVSA's handbook titled “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.” The CVSA handbook contains inspection procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC) for inspections of shipments of transuranic waste and highway route controlled quantities of radioactive material. The OOSC, while not regulations, provide enforcement personnel nationwide, including FMCSA's State partners, with uniform enforcement tolerances for inspections. The material is available, and will continue to be available, for inspection at the FMCSA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (Attention: Chief, Compliance Division) at (202) 366-1812. The document may be purchased from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, 6303 Ivy Lane, Suite 310, Greenbelt, MD 20770, telephone (301) 830-6143,
In this NPRM, FMCSA proposes to incorporate by reference the April 1, 2021, edition of the handbook. FMCSA did not update § 385.4(b) to incorporate by reference the April 1, 2020, edition of the handbook. This NPRM will discuss all updates to the currently incorporated 2019 edition of the handbook, including the updates made in the April 1, 2020, edition of the handbook.
Twenty-one updates distinguish the April 1, 2021, handbook edition from the 2019 edition. The incorporation by reference of the 2021 edition does not impose new regulatory requirements.
Congress has enacted several statutory provisions to ensure the safe transportation of hazardous materials in interstate commerce. Specifically, in provisions codified at 49 U.S.C. 5105(d), relating to inspections of motor vehicles carrying certain hazardous material, and 49 U.S.C. 5109, relating to motor carrier safety permits, the Secretary of Transportation is required to promulgate regulations as part of a comprehensive safety program on hazardous materials safety permits. The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87(d)(2) to carry out the rulemaking functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation. Consistent with that authority, FMCSA has promulgated regulations under 49 CFR part 385, subpart E to address the congressional mandate on hazardous materials safety permits. Those regulations are the underlying provisions to which the material incorporated by reference discussed in this document is applicable.
In 1986, the U.S. Department of Energy and CVSA entered into a cooperative agreement to develop a higher level of inspection procedures, out-of-service (OOS) conditions and/or criteria, an inspection decal, and a training and certification program for inspectors to conduct inspections on shipments of transuranic waste and highway route controlled quantities of radioactive material. CVSA developed the North American Standard Level VI Inspection Program for Transuranic Waste and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Material. This inspection program for select radiological shipments includes inspection procedures, enhancements to the North American Standard Level I Inspection, radiological surveys, CVSA Level VI decal requirements, and the “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.” As of January 1, 2005, all vehicles and carriers transporting highway route controlled quantities of radioactive material are regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation. All highway route controlled quantities of radioactive material must pass the North American Standard Level VI Inspection prior to the shipment being allowed to travel in the United States. All highway route controlled quantities of radioactive material shipments entering the United States must also pass the North American Standard Level VI Inspection either at the shipment's point of origin or when the shipment enters the United States.
Section 385.415 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, prescribes operational requirements for motor carriers transporting hazardous materials for which a hazardous materials safety permit is required. Section 385.415(b) requires that motor carriers ensure a pre-trip inspection is performed on each motor vehicle to be used to transport a highway route controlled quantity of a Class 7 (radioactive) material, in accordance with the requirements of CVSA's handbook titled “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.”
According to 2015-2019 data from FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), approximately 3.34 million Level I-Level VI inspections were performed annually. Nearly 97 percent of these
The changes to the 2021 and 2020 editions of the CVSA handbook are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and are generally editorial or ministerial. As discussed below, FMCSA does not expect the changes made in the 2021 edition of the CVSA handbook to affect the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
Section 385.4(b)(1), as amended on February 24, 2020 (85 FR 10307), references the April 1, 2019, edition of the CVSA handbook. This NPRM proposes to amend § 385.4(b)(1) by replacing the reference to the April 1, 2019, edition date with a reference to the new edition date of April 1, 2021.
CVSA also published a 2020 edition of the handbook in the period between the February 24, 2020, final rule and the publishing of the 2021 edition. FMCSA did not publish an update to the incorporation by reference in § 385.4(b)(1) with the April 1, 2020, edition of the handbook. This NPRM will therefore discuss the updates included in the 2020 and 2021 editions of the handbook. The changes made based on the 2020 and 2021 editions of the handbook are outlined below. It is necessary to update the materials incorporated by reference to ensure motor carriers and enforcement officials have convenient access to the correctly identified inspection criteria referenced in the rules.
Seventeen changes in the 2020 edition of the CVSA handbook distinguish it from the April 1, 2019 edition:
(1) The title of Part I, Item 2.a. was amended to clarify that “. . . vehicles that, regardless of GVWR, do not require a commercial driver's license (CDL) (
(2) The note in Part I, Item 2.b., and Part I, Item 3.c., was amended to clarify that in Canada, a “valid” Canadian Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) training certificate is required. Canadian TDG training certificates require certain informational items be identified; language was added to the note to clarify that a training certificate is considered invalid and the driver should be placed OOS if it is missing that required information. This update will ensure a uniform approach to Canadian TDG training certificate validity. This clarification is not expected to have any effect on the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections in the U.S.
(3) The title of Part I, Item 7., was amended by removing the language “AS IDENTIFIED UNDER SECTION 392.4(a)” because the OOS violations now listed in this section are not all located in § 392.4(a). In addition, CVSA added a new OOS item to address drivers who are recorded in the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse as prohibited from performing safety-sensitive functions per § 382.501(a) as a result of failing an alcohol or drug test. FMCSA records indicate that no driver-related OOS violations have been issued as a result of a Level VI inspection in the past 3 years. The changes are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and are not expected to affect the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
(4) Footnote 14 to Part I, Item 9., was amended to remove the reference to automatic on-board recording devices (AOBRDs), and a note was added to Footnotes 11-14 of the same section. The reference to AOBRDs in Footnote 14 was removed because the grandfather clause permitting use of AOBRDs expired on December 16, 2019, and therefore the reference to AOBRDs in Footnote 14 is no longer relevant. Since December 2017, the information in the `NOTE' outlines the policy that CVSA has used for placing drivers out of service for electronic logging device (ELD) violations. Similar information is listed in FMCSA's Frequently Asked Questions document on ELDs. The CVSA Driver-Traffic Enforcement Committee voted to add this information as a note relative to Footnotes 11-14. The changes are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and are not expected to affect the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
(5) Part I, Item 10.h., regarding records of duty status (RODS) in Canada was amended to remove the provision for a driver to be placed OOS for a period of 72 hours for not producing a daily log. Recent changes to the Canadian federal hours-of-service (HOS) regulations have eliminated the ability of an officer/inspector to place a driver OOS for 72 hours for not producing a daily log. Under the new regulations, a driver is placed OOS only for the number of hours required to have the driver provide a compliant daily log. This amendment is applicable only to the enforcement of Canadian HOS regulations and will not have any effect on the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections in the United States.
(6) Footnote 2 to Part I, Item 10., regarding RODS in Canada was amended to reduce the time a driver can be behind on his/her daily log and not be declared OOS. Given the recent changes to the Canadian federal HOS regulations as discussed above, and because the 72-hour timeframe to place a driver OOS for no production of a log book was removed, it was deemed appropriate to reduce the time a driver can be behind on his/her log before
(7) Part I, Item 11., was amended by (1) replacing the OOSC for Mexico to reflect the requirements in NOM-087-SCT-2-2017, and (2) adding footnotes to that section. NOM-087-SCT-2-2017 are Mexico's CMV regulatory requirements. Mexico recently updated its HOS Official Mexican Standards (Norma Oficial Mexicana) (NOMs), and this update required changes to the OOSC. CVSA worked with Mexico to make these updates, and Mexico approved the amendments as written for use in Mexico for OOS conditions. This amendment is applicable only to the enforcement of Mexican HOS regulations and will not have any effect on the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections in the United States.
(8) The charts for “Clamp Type Brake Chamber Data” and “Long Stroke Clamp Type Brake Chamber Data” in Part II, Item 1.a., were amended to add a new column listing the SAE J2899 markings found on brake chambers. SAE J2899, “Brake Adjustment Limit for Air Brake Actuators,” was issued in December 2013 and revised in June 2017, and was developed to provide an alternative way of determining the size and allowable stroke of a brake chamber. Manufacturers have the option to cast a marking permanently onto the center section of the brake chamber using the letters “A” through “H.” The markings are easy to see and indicate the rated stroke and pushrod stroke of the chamber without the need to measure the diameter or determine if it is long or short stroke. This marking method reduces the likelihood that an inspector will either (1) pass a vehicle that should be OOS, or (2) place a vehicle OOS that is within acceptable operating conditions. The CVSA Vehicle Committee voted unanimously to add a column in the charts in Part II, Item 1.a. that lists the SAE J2899 markings found on brake chambers. FMCSA records indicate that no violations or OOS violations have been issued regarding brakes being out of adjustment as a result of a Level VI inspection in the past 3 years. The changes are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and are not expected to affect the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
(9) Part II, Item 1., was amended to add a clarification that a parking brake needs to be held by mechanical means. Clarification was necessary regarding whether (1) the mechanical holding of the parking brake should be required, or (2) applying the parking brake with hand pressure and holding it with hand pressure is adequate. Specifically, in cases where the actuator cannot hold the parking brake in the applied position, it was unclear whether the vehicle should be placed OOS. Following discussion with brake industry experts, the CVSA Vehicle Committee confirmed that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 105 and 121 require the parking brake to be held by a mechanical means. FMCSA records indicate that no OOS violations have been issued regarding parking brakes as a result of a Level VI inspection in the past 3 years. The changes are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and are not expected to affect the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
(10) The title of Part II, Item 11.d., was amended to remove sway bars from the OOSC. The CVSA Vehicle Committee determined that sway bars provide comfort, not stability, and that they are not a critical vehicle inspection item. As such, the CVSA Vehicle Committee determined that missing or loose sway bars should not be an OOS condition. This amendment also requires a supporting edit to Note 2 in Part II, Item 11.b., that references the title to Part II, Item 11.d. FMCSA records indicate that no OOS violations have been issued regarding sway bars as a result of a Level VI inspection in the past 3 years. As such, and because the changes eliminate an existing OOS condition, the changes will not affect the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
(11) Part II, Item 12.a.9., and Part II, Item 12.b.4., were amended to clarify that the OOS condition refers to a wheel end on an axle. In response to questions regarding whether the tire loading restriction in § 393.75(g) of the FMCSRs applies to (1) a wheel end on an axle, or (2) a single tire on an axle, or (3) whether the entire axle must exceed the tire weight rating in order to constitute an OOS condition, the CVSA Vehicle Committee determined that exceeding the tire load limits should apply to the wheel end. The OOS condition applies when the tire or dual set exceeds the applicable load rating on the sidewall of the tire(s), and the language was amended to reflect this condition. FMCSA records indicate that no OOS violations have been issued regarding tire loading restrictions as a result of a Level VI inspection in the past 3 years. The changes are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and are not expected to affect the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
(12) Part II, Item 16.a., was amended to add new OOS conditions for emergency exits on passenger-carrying vehicles that are marked as such, but that are not necessarily required to be installed by regulation. Language was added to this section to clarify that passenger-carrying vehicles with marked emergency exits that are obstructed should be declared OOS, whether such exits are required to be installed or not. The new criteria were also separated to reference marked required exits, versus other marked exits, and the revised criteria clearly articulate the items/conditions that constitute an OOS condition. As this change applies only to passenger-carrying vehicles, it will not have any effect on the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections, which are applicable to carriers transporting transuranics and highway route controlled quantities of radioactive materials.
(13) Part III, Item 3.c., was amended to modify: (1) The title of this section; and (2) the OOS condition to include terminology adopted in Canada's TDG Regulations. While the previous title of this section referred only to “Bulk Package Authorization,” Canada's TDG Regulations do not reference bulk packages, but instead reference and define the term “large means of containment.” The Canadian Education Quality Assurance Team (EQAT)—Dangerous Goods Working Group requested addition of the Canadian terminology in the OOSC to improve uniform application of the OOS condition. Adding “large means of containment” to the OOSC will make it easier for Canadian inspectors to interpret the criteria. The changes are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and are not expected to affect the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
(14) Part III, Item 3.d., was amended by adding a note regarding manhole covers. The CVSA Hazardous Materials Committee contacted the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association to discuss manhole securement with the Tank Engineering Committee. The committee agreed that all fasteners on the dome need to be engaged and hand tightened to be considered closed and secured. Based on this information, the committee voted to add a note to the
(15) The title of Part III, Item 6., was amended to include terminology adopted in Canada's TDG Regulations. While the previous title of this section referred only to “Non-Bulk Packaging,” Canada's TDG Regulations do not reference non-bulk packaging, but instead reference and define the term “small means of containment.” The Canadian EQAT—Dangerous Goods Working Group requested the addition of Canadian terminology in the title to improve uniform application of the OOS condition. Adding “small means of containment” to the OOSC will make it easier for Canadian inspectors to interpret the criteria. The change is intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and is not expected to affect the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
(16) Part III, Item 10.a., regarding requirements pertaining to Canada's Emergency Response Assistance Plan (ERAP) was amended to specify that certain ERAP information must be on the shipping document. The Canadian EQAT—Dangerous Goods Working Group indicated that for first responders to activate an ERAP, the ERAP reference number and implementation telephone number must be listed on the shipping document. Currently, the OOSC only allows inspectors to place a shipment OOS if the carrier/consignor does not have an approved ERAP at all. Situations have arisen where the ERAP reference number/activation telephone number was not listed on the shipping document, and inspectors were not able to place the dangerous goods shipment OOS as intended. This additional language specifies that this information is required. This amendment is applicable only to Canada's ERAP, and will not have any effect on the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections in the United States.
(17) The Level VI Inspection Procedures were amended by adding Step 36, “Proof of Periodic (Annual) Inspection.” Currently, there is no language in the Level VI Inspection Procedures addressing the required periodic (annual) inspection. Adding this item will require each unit to have evidence that a periodic inspection was conducted and satisfactorily completed before a CVSA Level VI decal can be applied by the inspector during a point of origin inspection only. As this is not an OOS condition for the Level VI Inspection, this amendment will not have any effect on the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
Four changes in the 2021 edition of the CVSA handbook distinguish it from the April 1, 2020 edition:
(1) Footnotes 5-8 to Part I, Item 9., were amended to remove language that repeats the FMCSRs. The CVSA Driver-Traffic Enforcement Committee determined that there is no reason to repeat information in the OOSC that is contained in §§ 395.1 and 395.3. Quoting the FMCSRs in the footnotes could potentially confuse an inspector as there are other applicable exemptions that are not addressed in the footnotes. The footnotes, 5-8, were removed and reserved because other documents refer to these notes and renumbering them could cause confusion. The changes are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and are not expected to affect the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
Footnote 10 to Part I, Item 9., was amended to clarify that AOBRDs cannot be used in place of a compliant ELD. However, some carriers are exempt from using ELDs and they may still use AOBRDs. Language was added to this footnote to clarify that drivers who are not required to have an ELD that complies with § 395.22(a), but who utilize an electronic device other than those described in the regulations, shall not be declared OOS. The amendment is intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and is not expected to affect the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
(2) In Part I, Items 10.h. and 10.i., regarding RODS in Canada, were amended to include terminology based on the pending implementation of the ELD requirement, effective June 12, 2021. A note was also added to Footnotes 1-2 of the same section. The terminology in Canada's regulation will change from “daily log” to “RODS.” However, there will be some Provinces/Territories that will continue to use the daily log terminology in their Provincial/Territorial regulations. The Driver-Traffic Enforcement Committee determined that the appropriate action would be to refer to both terms to make the OOSC applicable to all drivers. These amendments are applicable only to Canada's RODS, and will not have any effect on the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections in the United States.
(3) Part I, Item 10., regarding RODS in Canada was amended by adding a footnote 6 to indicate that a driver who is found without an ELD but is still completing another form of a RODS will currently not be placed OOS. This enforcement action is different from that applicable in the U.S., so the note was added for Canadian inspectors to reference, similar to the note for the U.S (Footnote 10, Part I, Item 9. United States). The amendment is applicable only to Canada's RODS, and will not have any effect on the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections in the United States.
(4) Part II, Item 9.b., was amended to clarify that an inoperative center high-mounted stop lamp(s) that is required by regulation is considered a critical vehicle inspection item, but not considered for OOS purposes. The CVSA-critical vehicle inspection item list and the OOSC include “Lighting devices (headlamps, tail lamps, stop lamps, turn signals, and lamps/flags on projecting loads).” In both the United States and Canada, there are regulations requiring some smaller vehicles to be equipped with center high-mounted stop lamp(s) and they must be maintained and operational; however, on larger vehicles, they are optional. Therefore, in those cases where center high-mounted stop lamp(s) are required, the vehicle will still require at least one brake light in addition to the center high-mounted stop lamp(s) to avoid being placed OOS. The amendment is intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions and is not expected to affect the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections.
The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to the FMCSRs, apply only within the United States (and, in some cases, United States territories). Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries in which they operate, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences among nations.
The CVSA is an organization representing Federal, State, and Provincial motor carrier safety enforcement agencies in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The OOSC provide uniform enforcement tolerances for inspections conducted in all three countries.
Section 385.4(b)(1), as amended on February 24, 2020, references the April 1, 2019, edition of the CVSA handbook. This NPRM would replace the reference to the April 1, 2019, edition date with a reference to the new edition date of April 1, 2021.
FMCSA has considered the impact of this proposed rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. OIRA determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under these Orders.
The proposed rule, if finalized, would update an incorporation by reference from the April 1, 2019, edition to the April 1, 2021, edition of CVSA's handbook titled “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.” FMCSA reviewed its MCMIS data on inspections performed from 2015 to 2019 and does not expect the handbook updates to have any effect on the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections. Therefore, the proposed rule's impact would be de minimis.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
When an Agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the RFA requires the Agency to “prepare and make available an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” that will describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, instead of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rule is not expected to impact a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would update an incorporation by reference found at 49 CFR 385.4(b)(1) and referenced at 49 CFR 385.415(b), and would incorporate by reference the April 1, 2021, edition of the CVSA handbook. The changes to the 2021 edition of the CVSA handbook from the 2019 edition are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the OOS conditions, and are generally editorial or ministerial. As noted above, FMCSA does not expect the changes made in the 2021 edition of the CVSA handbook to affect the number of OOS violations cited during Level VI inspections. Accordingly, I certify that, if promulgated, this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FMCSA invites comments from anyone who believes there will be a significant impact on small entities from this action.
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this rulemaking so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the rulemaking would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $170 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2020 levels) or more in any one year. Though this rulemaking would not result in such an expenditure, the Agency does discuss the effects of this rulemaking elsewhere in this preamble.
This rulemaking contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,
This rulemaking does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
FMCSA analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, Mexico, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR chapter III, part 385, as set forth below:
49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), 5105(d), 5109, 5113, 13901-13905, 13908, 31135, 31136, 31144, 31148, and 31502; Sec. 113(a), Pub. L. 103-311; Sec. 408, Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 958; Sec. 350 of Pub. L. 107-87, 115 Stat. 833, 864; and 49 CFR 1.87.
(b) * * *
(1) “North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403,” April 1, 2021, incorporation by reference approved for § 385.415(b).
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
FMCSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to increase the area within which certain vehicle safety technology devices may be mounted on the interior of the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) windshields. In addition, FMCSA proposes to add items to the definition of
Comments must be received on or before August 5, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA
•
•
•
•
Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-0676;
FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2021-0037), indicate the specific section of this document to which your 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 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.
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
To view documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c). DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) of the FMCSRs prohibits obstruction of the driver's field of view by devices mounted at the top of the windshield. Antennas and similar devices must not be mounted more than 152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the windshield, and must be outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) does not apply to vehicle safety technologies, as defined in § 393.5, that include “a fleet-related incident management system, performance or behavior management system, speed management system, forward collision warning or mitigation system, active cruise control system, and transponder.” Section 393.60(e)(1)(ii) requires devices with vehicle safety technologies to be mounted (1) not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, or (2) not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and (3) outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
Specifically, the Agency proposes to modify § 393.60(e)(1)(ii) to increase from 100 mm (4 inches) to 216 mm (8.5 inches) the distance below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers within which vehicle safety technologies may be mounted. The other parameters would remain unchanged. The Agency believes the potential economic impact of these changes is negligible. The proposed amendments do not impose new or more stringent requirements, but simply codify the temporary exemptions granted pursuant to 49 CFR part 381 that allow the use of the devices/technologies in locations that would previously have been a violation of § 393.60(e)(1). More importantly, the amendments do not mandate the use of any devices/technologies, but simply permit their voluntary use while mounted in a location that maximizes their effectiveness without impairing operational safety.
The Agency expects that if a final rule is adopted consistent with this NPRM, it would generate cost savings for both industry and the Federal Government by reducing the overall time burden associated with the exemption request and approval process associated with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and the implementing regulations under 49 CFR part 381. The Agency estimates this NPRM would result in total annualized cost savings of $12,184 and $10,705 at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively.
This NPRM is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935 [1935 Act], the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 [1984 Act], and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
The 1935 Act, as amended, provides that “[t]he Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours-of-service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.” [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)].
The 1984 Act provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to “prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for commercial motor vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that—(1) commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate vehicles safely . . . ; (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under this section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this title.” [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)].
Section 5301 of the FAST Act directs FMCSA to exempt voluntary mounting of a vehicle safety technology on a windshield if that technology is likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be achieved without the exemption [Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1543, Dec. 4, 2015]. Section 5301(c) also specifies that any regulatory exemption for windshield-mounted technologies in effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act “shall be considered likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be achieved absent an exemption . . . .”
This NPRM is based in part on the 1935 Act, which allows the Agency to regulate the “safety of operation and equipment” of a motor carrier and the “standards of equipment” of a motor private carrier. The requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136 (a)(1), (2), and (4) of the 1984 Act are also applicable to this rulemaking action. The Agency proposes to amend 49 CFR part 393 to allow certain safety equipment to be mounted within the area of the windshield swept by the windshield wipers. The Agency believes that these changes will be welcomed by motor carriers and drivers alike and that coercion to violate these revised provisions, which is prohibited by § 31136(a)(5), will not be an issue. The NPRM does not involve the physical condition of drivers under § 31136(a)(3).
This NPRM rests in part on the intent of Congress expressed in section 5301 of the FAST Act to exempt safety equipment mounted within the swept area of windshields, provided such devices do not degrade operational safety.
FMCSA must consider the “costs and benefits” of any proposal before promulgating regulations (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A), 31502(d)).
The fundamental purpose of 49 CFR part 393, “Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation,” is to ensure that no employer shall operate a CMV, or cause or permit it to be operated, unless it is equipped in accordance with the requirements and specifications of this part. However, nothing contained in part 393 shall be construed to prohibit the use of additional equipment and accessories, not inconsistent with or prohibited by part 393, provided such equipment and accessories do not decrease the safety of operation of the CMVs on which they are used (§ 393.3).
Section 5301 of the FAST Act directed the Agency to amend the FMCSRs to allow devices to be mounted on the windshield that utilize “vehicle safety technology,” as defined in the Act. In addition, section 5301 stated that all windshield-mounted devices/technologies with a limited 2-year exemption in effect on the date of enactment were considered to meet the safety standard required for the initial exemption,
Since the Agency amended § 393.60 in 2016, FMCSA has granted a number of temporary exemptions for the placement of safety technologies and devices that require a clear forward-facing visual field for proper operation. These devices either need to be mounted within the swept area of the windshield, or should be mounted on the windshield so that the driver does not have to take his/her eyes off the road to look at the device, such as Global Positioning System (GPS) displays.
On August 3, 2017 (82 FR 36182), FMCSA granted Hino Motors a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) on behalf of motor carriers to operate CMVs manufactured by Hino equipped with Automated Emergency Braking/Lane Departure Warning system cameras mounted in the approximate center of the windshield such that the bottom edge of the camera is not more than 7 inches below the upper edge of the windshield and outside the driver's sight lines to all mirrors, highway signs, signals, and view of the road ahead.
On January 31, 2018 (83 FR 4543), FMCSA granted DTNA a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) on behalf of CMVs manufactured by DTNA equipped with the Attention Assist and Lane Departure Warning system camera mounted in the approximate center of the windshield such that the bottom edge of the camera is not more than 8.5 inches below the top of the area swept by the windshield wipers and outside the driver's sight lines to all mirrors, highway signs, signals, and view of the road ahead.
On August 22, 2018 (83 FR 42552), FMCSA granted Traditional Trucking Corporation a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) on behalf of motor carriers to operate CMVs equipped with GPS devices mounted (1) not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers; or (2) not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers; and (3) outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
On April 15, 2019 (84 FR 15284), FMCSA granted SmartDrive a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) on behalf of motor carriers to operate CMVs equipped with the SmartDrive's Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) camera system mounted in the approximate center of the windshield such that the bottom edge of the camera is not more than 8 inches below the upper edge of the swept area of the windshield wiper and outside the driver's sight lines to all mirrors, highway signs, signals, and view of the road ahead.
On November 25, 2019 (84 FR 64952), FMCSA granted Navistar a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) on behalf of motor carriers to operate CMVs equipped with Navistar's ADAS mounted in approximately the top center of the windshield and such that the bottom edge of the camera housing is approximately 8 inches below the upper edge of the windshield, outside of the driver's normal sight lines to the road ahead, highway signs and signals, and all mirrors.
On May 21, 2020 (85 FR 31021), FMCSA granted Lytx, Inc. a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) on behalf of motor carriers to operate CMVs equipped with Lytx's ADAS mounted in approximately the top center of the windshield and such that the bottom edge of the camera housing is approximately 8 inches below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, outside of the driver's normal sight lines to the road ahead, highway signs and signals, and all mirrors.
On October 9, 2020 (85 FR 64220), FMCSA granted Nauto, Inc. a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) on behalf of motor carriers to operate CMVs equipped with Nauto's multi-sensor device mounted in approximately the top center of the windshield and such that the bottom edge of the multi-sensor device housing is approximately 8 inches below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, outside of the driver's normal sight lines to the road ahead, highway signs and signals, and all mirrors.
On October 28, 2020 (85 FR 68409), FMCSA granted Samsara Networks, Inc. a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) on behalf of motor carriers to operate CMVs equipped with Samsara's AI Dash Cam device mounted in approximately the top center of the windshield and such that the bottom edge of the AI Dash Cam device is approximately 8 inches below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, outside of the driver's normal sight lines to the road ahead, highway signs and signals, and all mirrors.
On November 24, 2020 (85 FR 75106), FMCSA granted J.J. Keller & Associates, Inc. a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) on behalf of motor carriers operating CMVs equipped with J. J. Keller's ADAS camera mounted in approximately the top center of the windshield and such that the bottom edge of the camera housing is approximately 8 inches below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, outside of the driver's normal sight lines to the road ahead, highway signs and signals.
On December 18, 2020 (85 FR 82575), FMCSA granted Netradyne Inc. a 5-year exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) on behalf of motor carriers operating CMV's utilizing the Netradyne Driveri® Dash Cam which is mounted near the top center of the windshield, with the bottom of the camera housing located approximately 8 inches below the top of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
On March 10, 2019, DTNA petitioned the Agency to initiate a rulemaking to amend 49 CFR 393.60, “Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation, Glazing in Specified Openings.”
FMCSA proposes to amend § 393.60(e) to allow certain additional vehicle safety technologies to be mounted on the interior of the windshield of a CMV, within a defined portion of the swept area of the windshield. FMCSA is proposing to modify the definition of
Similar to the 2016 amendments to § 393.60, this NPRM proposes to update the FMCSRs in response to the development and proliferation of devices that utilize new and innovative vehicle safety technologies that did not exist at the time the previous requirements were adopted. If finalized, this NPRM rule would add GPS to the list of vehicle safety technologies even though the GPS display does not require a clear forward-facing visual field through the windshield. As discussed in the Traditional Trucking Corporation temporary exemption, GPS devices cannot be mounted to the “face” of the CMVs control panel as that area is covered with controls and displays necessary for the operation of the CMV. The GPS device can be located on top of the dash, which in many cases leaves the GPS in the same visual field as if the GPS were located on the windshield in the lower allowable area. Mounting the GPS lower on the dash would take the driver's eyes farther from the road. The size of GPS display units is approximately the same size as the currently allowed vehicle safety technologies in the driver's visual field. These devices/technologies have been proven to improve safety and vehicle operations.
The first temporary exemption from § 393.60(e)(1) was granted in March 2009, and FMCSA has over 12 years of real-world experience overseeing motor carriers operating CMVs using devices mounted on the interior of the windshield and marginally within the area swept by the windshield wipers. FMCSA is unaware of any crashes during that time attributed to the location of such devices.
To assist in development of the proposed regulatory revisions, the Agency specifically requests responses to the following questions:
1. Does the definition of
2. Would the proposed position of allowable vehicle safety technologies (not more than 8.5 inches below the upper and 7 inches above the lower edge of the swept area of the windshield) be sufficient for current and developing devices?
This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.
The definition for
This section would be revised by replacing “100 mm (4 inches)” with “216 mm (8.5 inches)” in paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(A). Additionally, a new paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(C) would be added to read “Outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.”
FMCSA has considered the impact of this notice of proposed rulemaking under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. OIRA determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under these Orders.
Additionally, this NPRM supports Executive Order 13859 which states that “the policy of the United States Government is to sustain and enhance the scientific, technological, and economic leadership position of the United States in AI [artificial intelligence].”
The mounting of devices on the interior of the windshield within the area swept by the windshield wipers is prohibited under 49 CFR 393.60(e), unless they are vehicle safety technologies. FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) to grant exemptions from certain parts of the FMCSRs. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
As originally enacted, 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) allowed an exemption from a regulation (and a renewal) for no longer than 2 years from its approval date. Section 5206(a)(3) of the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1534-1535 Dec. 4, 2015) amended section 31315(b) to allow an exemption to be granted for no longer than 5 years and to be renewed, upon request, for subsequent periods no longer than 5 years. 49 CFR 381.300 (b)
Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) of the FMCSRs prohibits the obstruction of the driver's field of view by devices mounted on the interior of the windshield. Antennas and similar devices must not be mounted more than 152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the windshield, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) does not apply to vehicle safety technologies, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, including “a fleet-related incident management system, performance or behavior management system, speed management system, lane departure warning system, forward collision warning or mitigation system, active cruise control system, and transponder.” Section 393.60(e)(1)(ii) requires devices with vehicle safety technologies to be mounted (1) not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, or (2) not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
This NPRM proposes revisions to 49 CFR 393.60 to expand the area where vehicle safety technologies (
Table 1 provides a summary of the affected population, costs, cost savings, and benefits of this NPRM.
This NPRM proposes two changes to the Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation regulations in 49 CFR part 393, subpart A and subpart D.
Under the existing § 393.5 definitions, vehicle safety technology includes a fleet-related incident management system, performance or behavior management system, speed management system, lane departure warning system, forward collision warning or mitigation system, active cruise control system, and transponder. Under the proposed rulemaking § 393.5 definitions would now also include braking warning systems, braking assist systems, automatic emergency braking, driver camera systems, attention assist warning, Global Positioning Systems and traffic sign recognition. Vehicle safety technology includes systems and devices that contain cameras, lidar, radar, sensors and/or video.
As a result of the proposed change, there would be new examples of vehicle safety technology devices and systems which would better accommodate the vehicle manufacturer advancements in the field of driver assistance technologies. The proposed change would have no cost. There would be benefits accrued through improved safety performance of CMVs via fatality, injury, and property damage prevention. For example, lane departure warning systems are anticipated to prevent accidents involving striking a car in an adjoining lane, which could either involve “sideswiping” a vehicle traveling in the same direction or hitting a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction, and rollovers, which often occur when a vehicle leaves the road. Additionally, automatic Emergency Braking systems engage dynamic brake support or crash-imminent braking to potentially save lives and reduce moderate and less severe rear-end crashes.
With regards to the existing § 393.60, (e)(1)(ii), Paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section does not apply to vehicle safety technologies, as defined in § 393.5, that are mounted on the interior of a windshield. Devices with vehicle safety technologies must be mounted outside the driver's sight lines to the road and to highway signs and signals, and:
• Not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers.
• Not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers.
Under the proposed change to § 393.60, (e)(1)(ii), Paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section does not apply to vehicle safety technologies, as defined in § 393.5, that are mounted on the interior of a windshield. Devices with vehicle safety technologies must be mounted outside the driver's sight lines to the road and to highway signs and signals, and:
• Not more than 216 mm (8.5 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers; or
• Not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers; and
• Outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
This proposed change would expand the area available for mounting vehicle safety technologies on the interior of a windshield. The proposed change would have no cost but would result in an annualized cost savings from reduced exemption application and approval process. The cost savings are estimated to be $12,184 and $10,705 at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates.
For this analysis, we calculated private sector wages using 2019 wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics for the Management of Companies and Enterprises (North American Industry Classification System 551100). We used median hourly wage for Standard Occupational Classification Code 11-2021—Marketing Managers which is $65.79.
We added a load factor to the industry wages for Marketing Managers using December 2019 wage and total compensation data from the BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) survey, which accounts for employee benefits. This load factor represents the total benefits as a percentage of total salary.
We utilize Federal Government employee wage rates based on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 2019 General Schedule (GS) pay for the DC-MD-VA-WV-PA locality for a GS-15 grade.
OMB publishes an object class analysis of the budget of the U.S. Government.
Motor carriers, industry technological manufacturers, and drivers would not incur any new costs associated with this NPRM. Adopting and using windshield-mounted technologies is purely optional. Those who install and use windshield-mounted technologies would experience no added burdens or costs.
In CMVs, drivers sit in an elevated position that greatly improves the forward visual field. When FMCSA previously granted exemptions, it found that doing so would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption. As described in Section VI. of this NPRM, since issuing the first temporary exemption from § 393.60(e)(1) in 2009, FMCSA is unaware of any crashes that have been attributed to the location of such devices.
The expanded location—not more than 216 mm (8.5 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept- is expected to keep pace with technological advances and further aid in meeting the statutory requirements of the FAST Act. The expanded area is outside the driver's line of sight to the road, highway signs, and signals.
We anticipate that this NPRM, if finalized consistent with the terms proposed, would generate cost savings to (1) motor carrier companies that file fewer periodic exemption requests, and (2) the Federal Government by reducing the volume of exemption requests to be reviewed and processed.
Several manufacturers of windshield-mounted technologies have requested exemptions from FMCSA. We estimate that this takes about 2 hours of company time. Manufacturers, on average, apply for 3 exemptions per year. Table 3 provides the 10-year time horizon cost savings stream based on the yearly undiscounted $568 (rounded to the nearest whole dollar) cost savings to industry if this NPRM would be finalized in 2022.
Federal
Table 5
The Agency was unable to identify literature that quantified the benefits of increasing the allowable windshield area for the mounting of vehicle safety technologies. In the absence of such analyses, the Agency did not quantify benefits associated with the NPRM, though it believes that the rule has the potential to improve the safety of CMV operations.
When preparing this NPRM, FMCSA considered two alternatives. In this section, we examine how the cost of the proposal would change with each alternative.
No Action.
Using this alternative, FMCSA would accept the status quo and not change the current exemption approval requirements. This alternative currently limits the windshield area in which new safety technologies can be mounted to not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers or not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers. This alternative does not favor innovation and technological growth, nor does it reduce the overall burden to industry of applying for, and to the Federal Government of reviewing, exemptions. This alternative would maintain the approximately $10,705 (annualized, 7 percent discount rate) in annual costs associated with the overall exemption request and approval process.
Preferred Alternative— Revise 49 CFR 393.60 to expand the windshield area where vehicle safety technologies could be installed on CMVs and revise 49 CFR 393.5 to broaden the definition of
Using this alternative, FMCSA would increase the allowable windshield area for installation of vehicle safety technologies. This would lead to an estimated $10,705 in annual cost savings without any estimated cost increase or reduction in benefits, as this analysis shows.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed rule is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. As this
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Agency expects that this NPRM, if finalized consistent with the proposed terms, would not have a significant economic impact on small entities. We expect a final rule consistent with the NPRM to result in cost savings to industry and the Federal Government.
FMCSA expects the average costs to manufacturers of windshield-mounted equipment associated with avoiding the need for exemption applications would be reduced by $568 per year (annualized, 7 percent discount rate). We calculate that 100 percent of small equipment manufacturers impacted by this NPRM would have a cost savings less than 1 percent of their annual revenue. No small governmental jurisdictions would be impacted by this NPRM.
Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this NPRM would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $170 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2020 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this NPRM would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required. However, FMCSA does discuss the costs and benefits of this NPRM in the preamble.
This NPRM contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). FMCSA notes that the burden associated with preparing an exemption request is not included in a currently approved information collection request (ICR), and is pursuing completion of that ICR outside of this rulemaking.
A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” FMCSA has determined that this rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,
The Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the NPRM might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The DOT Privacy Office has determined that this rulemaking does not create privacy risk.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
The proposed requirements in this rule are covered by this CE and the NPRM does not have any effect on the quality of the environment.
Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR chapter III, part 393 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); sec. 5301 and 5524 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1543, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.
(e)
(ii) Paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section does not apply to
A. Not more than 216 mm (8.5 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers;
B. Not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers; and
C. Outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice.
We are advising the public that we have added Malaysia to the list of regions that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service considers to be affected with African swine fever (ASF). We have taken this action because of confirmation of ASF in Malaysia.
Malaysia was added to the APHIS list of regions considered affected with ASF on March 2, 2021.
Dr. John Grabau, Regionalization Evaluation Services, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 920 Main Campus Drive, Venture II, Raleigh, NC 27606; Phone: (919) 855-7738; email:
The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of specified animals and animal products to prevent introduction into the United States of various animal diseases, including African swine fever (ASF). ASF is a highly contagious animal disease of wild and domestic swine. It can spread rapidly in swine populations with extremely high rates of morbidity and mortality. A list of regions where ASF exists or is reasonably believed to exist is maintained on the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) website at
Section 94.8(a)(3) of the regulations states that APHIS will add a region to the list referenced in § 94.8(a)(2) upon determining ASF exists in the region, based on reports APHIS receives of outbreaks of the disease from veterinary officials of the exporting country, from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), or from other sources the Administrator determines to be reliable, or upon determining that there is reason to believe the disease exists in the region. Section 94.8(a)(1) of the regulations specifies the criteria on which the Administrator bases the reason to believe ASF exists in a region. Section 94.8(b) prohibits importation of pork and pork products from regions listed in accordance with § 94.8, except if processed and treated in accordance with the provisions specified in that section or consigned to an APHIS-approved establishment for further processing. Section 96.2 restricts the importation of swine casings that originated in or were processed in a region where ASF exists, as listed under § 94.8(a).
On February 19, 2021, the veterinary authorities of Malaysia reported to the OIE the occurrence of ASF in that country. Therefore, in response to this outbreak, on March 2, 2021, APHIS added Malaysia to the list of regions where ASF exists or is reasonably believed to exist. This notice serves as an official record and public notification of that action.
As a result, pork and pork products from Malaysia, including casings, are subject to APHIS import restrictions designed to mitigate the risk of ASF introduction into the United States.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
U.S. Codex Office, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The U.S Codex Office is sponsoring a public meeting on September 1, 2021. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 46th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, to be held virtually, September 27-October 1, 2021 with the report adoption on October 7, 2021. The U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius and the Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 46th Session of the CCFL and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for September 1, 2021, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. EDT.
The public meeting will take place via Video Teleconference only. Documents related to the 46th Session of the CCFL will be accessible via the internet at the following address:
Dr. Douglas Balentine, U.S. Delegate to the 46th Session of the CCFL, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
For Further Information about the 46th Session of the CCFL, contact U.S. Delegate, Dr. Douglas Balentine,
For Further Information about the public meeting Contact: U.S. Codex Office, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, Washington, DC 20250. Phone (202) 720-7760, Fax: (202) 720-3157, Email:
Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.
The Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) are:
(a) To draft provisions on labeling applicable to all foods;
(b) to consider, amend if necessary, and endorse draft specific provisions on labeling prepared by the Codex Committees drafting standards, codes of practice and guidelines;
(c) to study specific labeling problems assigned to it by the Commission; and,
(d) to study problems associated with the advertisement of food with particular reference to claims and misleading descriptions.
The CCFL is hosted by Canada. The United States attends the CCFL as a member country of Codex.
The following items on the Agenda for the 46th Session of the CCFL will be discussed during the public meeting:
At the September 1, 2021, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Dr. Douglas Balentine, U.S. Delegate for the 46th Session of the CCFL (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, the U.S. Codex Office will announce this
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection.
This collection is an extension, without change, of a currently approved collection for activities associated with administering emergency allotments (EA) waivers. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020, enacted March 18, 2020, includes a general provision that allows the Department of Agriculture to issue emergency allotments (EA) waivers based on a public health emergency declaration by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act related to an outbreak of COVID-19 when a State has also issued an emergency or disaster declaration.
Written comments must be received on or before September 7, 2021.
Comments may be sent to: Kelly Stewart, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1320 Braddock Place, 5th Floor, Alexandria, VA 22314; telephone 703-305-2425. Comments may also be submitted via email to
Go to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Kelly Stewart at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
As authorized by Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020, State agencies impacted by COVID-19 may submit an EA waiver request to their FNS Regional Office for approval to provide a EA to households to bring all households up to the maximum benefit due to pandemic related economic conditions. As outlined in the April 2021 guidance, State agency waivers will generally be approved under one or more the following conditions as it relates to COVID-19:
The State agency must also confirm that the State's emergency or disaster declaration remains active.
In addition, to allow for State EA phase-out upon expiration of the State's emergency declaration, States may request EA approval for one additional issuance month if:
• The national public health emergency declaration that was extended on January 21, 2021, by the Secretary for Health and Human Services under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act remains in place, and
• The State-issued emergency or disaster declaration has expired or will expire in the current month. This will allow a State that has lost or will lose its declaration in the current month to provide one additional issuance month of EA and to notify SNAP participants that EA benefits will be ending.
Once the State's EA waiver has been approved by FNS, the State may provide the EA without contacting the household. Following waiver approval, FNS will require State Agencies to attest to FNS on a monthly basis the EA waiver is still needed and that the State declaration remains in place. Both the initial EA waiver and the monthly attestation are conducted via email. FNS expects 53 State agencies will submit one initial EA waiver to FNS. Currently 51 State agencies are operating under an EA waiver. It is possible that States may have more than one declared public health emergency over the next year as COVID-19 rates ebb and flow, therefore we are including hours for these initial waiver requests in this IC as a precautionary measure. There are three reporting requirements for this information collection request. (1) Each initial EA waiver submission should take approximately one hour to complete. (2) Each monthly email attesting to the continued need for the EA waiver is expected to take 15 minutes to complete. FNS expects that any phase-out request, as outlined in the April 2021 guidance, would be included in the email as part of the monthly attestation process; the indication of phase-out would simply signal the end of that State's need for EA and, thus, monthly attestations. The phase out request is expected to take 1 minute of the 15 minutes estimated for monthly attestation; therefore, no additional burden is estimated for phase-out requests.
Section 18(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, requires that, “In any fiscal year, the Secretary shall limit the value of those allotments issued to an amount not in excess of the appropriation for such fiscal year.” Because the EA waiver increases the monthly benefit of participants above the amount originally anticipated for this fiscal year, the amount of benefits issued and redeemed must be carefully tracked to ensure FNS does not exceed its appropriation. As such, it is necessary for FNS to collect information from State agencies operating EA on a more frequent basis than would be reported normally. Generally, States report disaster-related
While a State is operating under an EA waiver, (3) FNS requires the State to submit
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Forest Service.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA or Department) proposes to create a new system of records titled “Department of Agriculture Forest Service Application Cloud Environment (FS ACE).” ACE is a general support system owned by the Forest Service Chief Information Officer (CIO) and operated by the Data Center Services Branch of the Forest Service CIO Operations Division. The system is located and managed in two geographically separated USDA Digital Infrastructure Services Centers (DISC), Class 4 data centers: One in Kansas City, MO; and the other in St. Louis, MO. Each provide alternate processing and data storage services in support of disaster recovery activities. Additionally, DISC-Kansas City provides off-site tape storage in Lenexa, KS, through a third-party vendor, Recall. All three locations are addressed within the DISC authorization boundaries.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice is effective upon publication, subject to a 30-day notice and comment period to comment on the routine uses described below. Please submit any comments by August 5, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number FS-2021-0004 by one of the following methods:
•
• Cynthia Towers, NRE Forest Service Privacy Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
• email to
For general questions about this notice, please contact Cynthia Towers, NRE Forest Service Privacy Officer, at 816-286-5272 or by email at
For privacy issue questions, please contact: Sullie Coleman, Chief Privacy Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250 or by email at
The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), requires agencies to publish in the
The Forest Service proposes to create a system of records entitled USDA/FS-63 Application Cloud Environment (FS ACE) that will be used to maintain records of activities conducted by the Agency pursuant to its mission and responsibilities.
Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
USDA/FS-63 Application Cloud Environment (FS ACE). Forest Service Application Cloud Environment (FS ACE) CSAM ID 1991, External ID: UII Code: 005-000000243; 005-000003304; 005-000003305; 005-000000257.
Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).
The system is located and managed in two geographically-separated U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
ACE System Owner, Management Office 903 E 104th Street, Ste. 210, Kansas City, MO 64131. Additional location: Production DC—DISC Kansas City, MO.
For FS ACE, authorities for general collection of information come from by 31 U.S.C. 3512, Executive Agency Accounting Systems Act of September 12,1950, and 16 U.S. Code § 551—Protection of national forests; rules and regulations. For Federal requirements for the collection of information, also see: 5 U.S.C. Chapter 552 (Freedom of Information Act), 44 U.S.C. Chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33 (Records Management), and 18 U.S.C. 2071 (Concealment, removal, or mutilation of government records).
The purpose of this system of records is to manage a set of projects that is part of the Digital Infrastructure Services Center cloud migration. The goal of the FS ACE is to enable the Agency to concentrate on building integrated business solutions rather than managing separate technology issues. This system provides general hosting services to applications within the Forest Service. Hosting services include Virtual Data Center (VDC) environment, storage, backup and recovery, monitoring, etc. The FS ACE hosts the applications that collects an individual's personal information (PII) as a part of doing business with the Forest Service. FS ACE houses sensitive data from various FS programs and allows FS authorized users the ability to access and update this information. For example:
• Integrates the information for reporting, analysis, and management of various Human Resource Management processes and functions, which includes both PII, and budget and finance data;
• Contains applications to collect, store, edit, compile and report on field collected resource data for our nation's forests and grasslands per the Farm Bill requirement; and
• FS ACE collects PII from several applications that include short term (seasonal) contractors and researchers in support of the Forest Inventory & Analysis program.
All individuals granted access to the FS ACE are covered: All individuals, even if they are not users of the FS ACE who are mentioned or referenced in any documents entered into FS ACE by a user are also covered. This group may include, but is not limited to, vendors, agents, and other business personnel.
The system of records includes the following required information about an individual: The individual's first and last name, social security number, tax identification number, passport number, driver's license number, or unique identification number.
Information contained in FS ACE may be collected from an individual via fax, email, form, telephone, or website, depending on the application used.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, records contained in a system may be disclosed outside USDA as a routine use under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) to the extent that such uses are compatible with the purposes for which the information was collected. Such permitted routine uses include the following disclosures:
A. To the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, Tribal, foreign, or other public authority responsible for enforcing, investigating, or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, when a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program, statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, disclosure may be made if the information disclosed is relevant to any enforcement, regulatory, investigative, or prospective responsibility of the receiving entity and. Referral to the appropriate agency occurs, whether Federal, State, local, Tribal, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting violation of law, or of enforcing or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto of any record within this system when information available indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature;
B. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), when: (a) USDA or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of USDA in his or her official capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or (c) the United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and USDA determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records by the DOJ is therefore deemed by USDA to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which USDA collected the records;
C. To a court or adjudicative body in a proceeding when: (a) USDA or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of USDA in his or her official capacity; or (c) any employee of the Agency in his or her individual capacity where USDA has agreed to represent the employee, or the United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and USDA determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that use of such records is therefore deemed by USDA to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which USDA collected the records;
D. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) USDA suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) USDA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, USDA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with USDA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm; or to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the agency (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security;
E. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a
F. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the written request of the individual about whom the record pertains.
G. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or other Federal government agencies pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
H. To an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
I. To appropriate Federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer, when USDA is aware of a need to use relevant data for purposes of testing new technology.
J. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, or when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of USDA, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of USDA's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
None.
All records are stored electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on digital media. Each USDA mission area, agency, and staff office creates and maintains proper and adequate documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the Department. This documentation protects the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the Department's activities (44 U.S.C. 3101). U.S.C. Title 7, Chapters 55 2204 state that the Secretary of Agriculture may conduct any survey or other information collection and employ any sampling or other statistical method that the Secretary determines is appropriate.
The Department is also authorized to obtain certain information under Sec. 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, Pub. L. 106-554) as well as Title 5 Part I Chapter 3-301, and 5 U.S.C. 552 § 552a.
Records are maintained in accordance with Forest Service records management policy and NARA's General Records Schedule, and/or NARA-approved records schedules for NARA Records Group 95. Depending on the application being used, records may be retrieved by Name or Unique identifier such as: Social security number, tax identification number, passport number, driver's license number, agency assigned number, case number, account number or permit number, as appropriate.
Records covered by this Privacy Act System of Records Notices (SORN) are managed according to records retention schedules approved by the NARA. Records schedules used to retain and manage records are found in Chapter 40 of Forest Service Handbook 6209.11—Records Management Handbook. This Handbook is available on the Forest Service website at
When applicable, paper records are kept in a locked or secured office or office building, and/or retained in a Forest Service secured computer system and can only be accessed by authorized Forest Service employees. Department/Forest Service safeguards electronic records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable automated systems' security and access policies. The Forest Service has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising stored information. System access, including access to records stored in an Agency-approved repository (such as Pinyon or its successor) is limited to individuals with appropriate clearances or permissions who need to know the information for performance of official duties.
An individual who is the subject of a record in this system may seek access to those records that are not exempt from the access provisions set forth at 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). A determination whether a record may be accessed will be made at the time a request is received. All inquiries should be addressed in accordance with the “Notification procedures” below.
Any individual may contest information contained within a record in the system that pertains to him/her by submitting a written request to the system manager at the address indicated in the “Notification procedures” section. Include the reason for contesting the record and the proposed amendment to the information with supporting documentation to show how the record is inaccurate.
Individuals seeking access to records contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest content, may submit a request in writing to the Forest Service FOIA/Privacy Act Officer (contact information at
The request should include a daytime phone number and email. Provide as much information as possible about the
If you are making a request for records about yourself, you may receive greater access by providing either a notarized statement or a statement signed under penalty of perjury stating that you are the person who you say you are.
Provide your full name, date, and either: (1) Have your signature witnessed by a notary; or (2) include the following statement immediately above the signature on your request letter: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date].” Requests that do not contain the required declaration will be processed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and, if records are found, you may not receive as much information, including information about you. If additional information is required to fulfill a Privacy Act request, you will be notified.
If you want records about yourself to be released to a third party (such as a law firm or other organization requesting records on your behalf), the third party may receive greater access if they have permission from you.
You will need a signed and dated statement that the Forest Service may release records pertaining to you. Include your name; date of birth; name of the person or organization to whom you want your records disclosed (where applicable); their contact information; and list of records that may be released (all, emails, medical records, etc.). The person about whom the records will be released should include a statement indicating that they understand that knowingly or willingly seeking or obtaining access to records about another person under false pretenses and or without their consent is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000.
Requests must be for access to existing records. The Forest Service FOIA Office will not create records for the purpose of responding to a FOIA or Privacy Act request.
• FOIA excludes Federal agencies from its definition of persons permitted to make FOIA requests [
Any individual may request general information regarding this system of records or information as to whether the system contains records pertaining to him/her. All inquiries pertaining to this system should be in writing, must name the system of records as set forth in the system notice, and must contain the individual's name, telephone number, address, and email address (see specific instructions above).
None.
The Forest Service proposes to create a new system of records entitled “USDA/Forest Service-63 Application Cloud Environment (FS ACE) System of Records” that will be used to maintain records of activities conducted by the Agency pursuant to its mission and responsibilities.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA or Department) proposes to modify the current system of records entitled “Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-33—Law Enforcement and Investigative Records” (LEIRS). This system allows Law Enforcement and Investigations to record claims and criminal activities in the National Forests which include verified violations of criminal statutes and/or Agency policy, as well as situations that may result in civil claims for or against the government. This information helps the Agency meet its objective of contributing to Officers, Forest Service employees, and National Forest visitor safety.
This notice is applicable upon publication, subject to a 30-day period in which to comment on the routine uses described below. Comments must be submitted by August 5, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number FS-2021-0002 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions please contact: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Law Enforcement and Investigations Staff, Curtis Davis, (703) 605-4730, or Fax (703) 605-5114, or email
The purpose of changes to this system of records are:
1. To provide the procedures that allow individuals to gain access to their information maintained in its System of Records Notice (SORN) as outlined in section 6 (Notice) and section 7 (Access, Redress, and Correction) of the LEIRS, formally known as LEIMARS, Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA).
2. To reflect changes in practice and policy that affect the personally identifiable information (PII) maintained in its system of records. The LEIRS, formally known as LEIMARS, database system is not accessible to the public. The information is shared on a need-to-know basis with Law Enforcement partners and the Federal, State, and local court systems. Information such as statistical crime analysis, including but not limited to the number of incidents and cases but excluding PII, is shared within Congress and other agencies on a need-to-know basis.
The intended effect of these changes is to show individuals their PII information is secured in LEIRS, formally known as LEIMARS.
The Forest Service proposes to modify a system of records, entitled “USDA/FS-33 Law Enforcement and Investigative Records” that will be used to maintain records of activities
The Forest Service Law Enforcement Investigations Reporting System (LEIRS), formally known as Law Enforcement Investigations Management Attainment Reporting System (LEIMARS) is primarily a criminal database and is used to collect information concerning criminal incidents that includes the PII related to suspects, witnesses, and victims in addition to information pertaining to the investigation of criminal activity. The LEIRS, formally known as LEIMARS, system collects the following information (that may be considered PII): First name, last name, middle initial, date of birth, home or mailing address, work address, driver's license, fishing license, hunting license, military issued ID, school issued ID, social security ID, state issued ID, height, weight, race, sex, hair color, eye color, adult/juvenile, and occupation. LEIRS, formally known as LEIMARS, is also used to document incidents that may be non-criminal in nature, primarily pertaining to civil cases which may result in a claim for or against the government.
Consistent with USDA's information sharing mission, information stored in LEIRS, formally known as LEIMARS, may be shared with other USDA components, as well as appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies. This sharing will only take place after USDA determines that the receiving component or agency has a need to know the information to carry out national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other functions consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which the United States Government collects, maintains, uses, and disseminates personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency for which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass United States citizens and legal permanent residents.
The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), requires agencies to publish in the
Chief information Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
Law Enforcement Investigations Reporting System, formally known as Law Enforcement Management Attainment Reporting System (LEIMARS), USDA/FS-33 Law Enforcement and Investigative Records.
Unclassified.
LEIMARS is a centralized database and is hosted on the Forest Service Application Cloud Environment (ACE) which is physically located at the National Information Technology Center (NITC), 8930 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, MO 64114.
The Director, Law Enforcement and Investigations (LEI), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, (Mail Stop 1140), Washington, DC 20250.
Title 16, United States Code, section 559.
LEIRS, formally known as LEIMARS, is a national database used by Forest Service LEI consisting of approximately 600 to 700 users dispersed throughout the nine Forest Service Regions. The information is being collected to document all criminal and civil investigations that take place or are related to crimes committed on National Forest System lands.
Individuals covered by the system include:
•
•
•
•
The system consists of files containing reports of investigation, correspondence, informal notes, statements of witnesses, names, addresses, social security numbers, dates of birth, law enforcement reports, and other available incident information to investigations conducted, enforcement actions, or violations.
LEIRS, formally known as LEIMARS, is primarily a criminal and civil investigation database and is used to collect information concerning criminal incidents that includes the PII related to suspects, witnesses, and victims in addition to information pertaining to the investigation of criminal activity. The LEIRS, formally known as LEIMARS, system collects the following information (that may be considered PII): First name, last name, middle initial, date of birth, home or mailing address, work address, driver's license, fishing license, hunting license, military issued ID, school issued ID, social security ID, state issued ID, height, weight, race, sex, hair color, eye color, adult/juvenile, and occupation, handwriting or an image of the signature. LEIRS, formally known as LEIMARS, is also used to document incidents that may be non-criminal in the nature, primarily pertaining to civil cases which may result in a claim for or against the government.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, routine uses are defined as disclosures where information is routinely shared whether internally or externally. Below are routine uses applicable to LEIMARS:
A. Sharing information with the Department of Justice (DOJ) when: (a) USDA or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of USDA in his or her official capacity where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; or (c) the United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and, by careful review, USDA determines that the records are both relevant and
B. Sharing information with a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the written request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. Sharing information with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or other Federal government agencies pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. Sharing information with an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. Sharing information with appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) USDA suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) USDA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, USDA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with USDA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. Sharing information when a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, disclosure may be made to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, foreign, State, local, or tribal, or other public authority responsible for enforcing, investigating, or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the information disclosed is relevant to any enforcement, regulatory, investigative, or prosecutorial responsibility of the receiving entity. Referral to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting violation of law, or of enforcing or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, of any record within the system when information available indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature.
G. Sharing information with another Federal agency or Federal entity when information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (a) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
H. To a court or adjudicative body in a proceeding when: (a) USDA or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of USDA in his or her official capacity; or (c) any employee of USDA in his or her individual capacity where USDA has agreed to represent the employee or the United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, USDA determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is therefore deemed by USDA to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which USDA collected the records.
None.
All hard copies of documents related to case investigations are stored in a room with an extra security lock. This local security serves as an additional measure to ensure that only authorized personnel can access these documents. Each USDA mission area, agency, and staff office creates and maintains proper and adequate documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the Department. This documentation protects the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the Department's activities (44 U.S.C. 3101). U.S.C. Title 7, Chapters 55—2204 state that the Secretary of Agriculture may conduct any survey or other information collection and employ any sampling or other statistical method that the Secretary determines is appropriate.
The Department is also authorized to obtain certain information under Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554, codified at 44 U.S.C. 3516) as well as Title 5, Part I, Chapter 3—301, and 5 U.S.C. 552—Sec. 552a.
Records are maintained in accordance with Forest Service records management policy and NARA's General Records Schedule and/or NARA-approved records schedules for NARA Records Group 95. Records are maintained in categories organized by subject matter under the following file codes:
5300—Law Enforcement
5310—“Planning”
5320—“Investigation”
5330—“Law Violations”
5340—“Reports”
5350—“Procedures”
5360—“Cooperative Law Enforcement”
5370—“Suitability Requirements, Training, and Standards”
5380—“Law Enforcement Equipment”
5390—“Damage Appraisal and Claims”
Records covered by this Privacy Act SORN are managed according to records retention schedules approved by NARA. Records schedules used to retain and manage records are found in Chapter 40 of Forest Service Handbook 6209.11—Records Management Handbook. This Handbook is available on the Forest Service website at
Computer files are password protected. When applicable, paper records are kept in a locked or secured
Individuals are not allowed to access their information through the LEIMARS database. Although access to the system may be denied, any person, including U.S. citizens, foreign nationals, organizations, universities, businesses, and state and local governments, can file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to acquire copies of records of the system. Federal employees may not use government time or equipment when requesting information under the FOIA. Individuals seeking access to records contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest content, may submit a request in writing to the Forest Service FOIA/Privacy Act Officer (contact information at
Requests must be for access to existing records. The Forest Service FOIA Office will not create records for the purpose of responding to a FOIA or Privacy Act request. FOIA excludes Federal agencies from its definition of persons permitted to make FOIA requests (see 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(A) and 5 U.S.C. 551(2)). To avoid confusion as to whether Federal employees are requesting information in their personal or official capacities, requests from Federal employees should be submitted using personal resources.
Any individual may contest information contained within a record in the system that pertains to him/her by submitting a written request to the system manager at the address above. Include the reason for contesting the record and the proposed amendment to the information with supporting documentation to show how the record is inaccurate.
LEIRS, formally known as LEIMARS, contains information about individuals that is recorded on a Violation Notice. Individuals who receive a Violation Notice are provided with a copy at the time of the incident. The notification provides a copy of all recorded information to individuals.
Information to individuals is provided via:
• LEIRS, formally known as LEIMARS, Privacy Impact Analysis on the Department Privacy Impact Analysis website,
• The
• Forest Service-specific System of Records Notices are also published on the Forest Service website
• Forms associated with Privacy Act systems are approved through the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (also cited in the
Any individual may request general information regarding this system of records or information as to whether the system contains records pertaining to him/her. All inquiries pertaining to this system should be in writing, must name the system of records as set forth in the system notice, and must contain the individual's name, telephone number, address, and email address (see specific instructions above).
This system has been exempted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), 552a(d), 552a(e)(l), 552a(e)(3), 552a(4)(h)-(i), and 552a(f) (
Document Citation—69 FR 56031, pages 56031-56032 (2 pages), FR Doc. 04-20930 Filed 9-16-04; 8:45 a.m.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the renewal of a currently approved information collection, Pesticide-Use Proposal.
Comments must be received in writing on or before September 7, 2021 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed:
Please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
The public may request an electronic copy of the draft supporting statement and/or any comments received be sent via return email. Requests should be emailed to
Mr. Stephen A. Covell, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, telephone 703-605-5342, email
The Forest Service proposes to use the PUP form to collect pesticide project information from those outside entities to facilitate authorization of selected activities. Completion of the PUP form includes identification of pests to be controlled, pesticide to be applied, and other regulatory compliance information such as use of certified applicators. Because diverse pesticide-use projects are designed for local conditions, it is appropriate for the PUP form to be used to ensure that essential details are uniformly assembled for review.
Proposals will be evaluated by Forest Service pesticide use coordinators and other administrative personnel to safeguard human health and ecological protection consistent with Forest Service land use management programs. Form and instructions will be posted on a Forest Service website for ready public availability.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA or Department) proposes to modify and reissue the current system of records entitled “Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Mineral Lessees and Permittees.” This system allows the Forest Service Minerals and Geology program to support Forests and Grasslands to manage locatable minerals and mineral materials. This information helps the Agency meet its objectives to explore, develop, and produce mineral resources.
Submit comments on or before August 5, 2021. This new system will be effective August 5, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number FS-2021-0003 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions and privacy issues please contact: U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, Minerals and Geology Management, Geologist, Chad Hood (208) 373-4190, 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83709; for privacy questions, please contact: Sullie Coleman, Chief Privacy Officer, by email at
The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), requires agencies to publish in the
The Forest Service proposes to modify a system of records, entitled “USDA/Forest Service-16 Mineral Lessees and Permittees System of Records,” that will be used to maintain records of activities conducted by the Agency pursuant to its mission and responsibilities.
The Forest Service is modifying the system name to Mineral Operators and Activities and adding categories of individuals covered by the system; categories of records in the system; updating the way records are maintained; adding (#) routine uses and modifying (#) routine uses; and adding system managers for an existing Privacy Act system of records.
USDA/Forest Service-16 Mineral Lessees and Permittees System of Records.
Mineral Operators and Activities System, CSAM ID: 1075, External ID: 643, UII Code: 005-96-01-11-01-2137-00.
Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).
All data is maintained in the National Resource Manager (NRM) General Support System (GSS) located at the National Information Technology Center (NITC) in Kansas City, Missouri. Paper records are located at the Regional Forester, Forest Supervisor, and District Ranger offices. The addresses for these locations are available on the Forest Service website, at
The Director, Minerals and Geology Management, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 1126, Washington, DC 20250; Regional Minerals Directors are located in the Regional Forester, Forest Supervisor; and District Ranger offices.
42 U.S.C. 4321 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
Public Law 113-79 Agriculture Act 2014;
Public Law 94-588 National Forest Management Act of 1976;
36 CFR 228 subpart A, Locatable Minerals;
36 CFR 228 subpart C, Salable Minerals.
The purpose of this system of records is to maintain records related to individuals or companies who have applied for or hold mineral material contract's or permit's issued by the Forest Service covering National Forest System lands; locatable mineral operators on National Forest System lands; and lessees and assignees of any mineral materials contract, permit, or locatable mineral operations. The Forest Service uses these records to ensure mining projects are administered and reclaimed in compliance with mining and environmental regulations.
Individuals covered by the system include members of the public who have applied for or hold mineral material contracts or permits issued by the Forest Service covering National Forest System lands; locatable mineral operators on National Forest System lands; and lessees and assignees of any mineral materials contract, permit, or locatable mineral operations.
The system includes documents that may contain the name, address, or email address of members of the public who have applied for or hold mineral permits, contracts, a plan of operations, or a notice of intent. The information consists of inter- and intra-agency, Secretarial, Presidential, and Congressional correspondence; correspondence to/from individuals covered by the system of records; notices of intent to operate; operating plans; evaluation of surface disturbance and related mitigation; reclamation plans and bonds; mineral evaluations; environmental reports; reports of mineral examinations and pleadings; permits; sale contracts; and authorized field contact for any minerals related activity.
Information maintained in this system is provided by the members of the public and Agency staff personnel. Forest Service forms FS-2800-5 (OMB No. 0596-0022) and FS-2800-9 (OMB No. 0596-0081) are used to collect information.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, records contained in a system may be disclosed outside the Department as follows:
A. To the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, Tribal, foreign, or other public authority responsible for enforcing, investigating, or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto when a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program, statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, disclosure may be made if the information disclosed is relevant to any enforcement, regulatory, investigative, or prospective responsibility of the receiving entity.
B. To the Department of Justice, when the Agency—or any component thereof, or any employee of the Agency in his or her official capacity, or any employee of the Agency in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee, or the United States, in litigation, where the Agency determines that litigation is likely to affect the Agency or any of its components—is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by the Department of Justice is deemed by the Agency to be relevant
C. To a Member of Congress or to a congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained.
D. To agency contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, or volunteers who have been engaged by the agency to assist in the performance of a service related to this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity. Recipients shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
E. Disclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
F. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or to the General Services Administration for records management inspection conducted under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
G. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of USDA, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of USDA's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
None.
All records are stored electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on digital media. Each USDA mission area, agency, and staff office creates and maintains proper and adequate documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the Department. This documentation protects the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the Department's activities (44 U.S.C. 3101). U.S.C. Title 7, Chapters 55—2204 state that the Secretary of Agriculture may conduct any survey or other information collection and employ any sampling or other statistical method that the Secretary determines is appropriate.
The Department is also authorized to obtain certain information under Sec. 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, Pub. L. 106-554) as well as Title 5 Part I Chapter 3-301, and 5 U.S.C. 552 552a.
Records are maintained in accordance with Forest Service records management policy and NARA's General Records Schedule and/or NARA-approved records schedules for NARA Records Group 95. Records are maintained in categories organized by subject matter under the following file codes:
• 2800—MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
• 2810—“MINING CLAIMS”
• 2840—“RECLAMATION”
• 2850—“MINERAL MATERIALS”
• 2860—“FOREST SERVICE AUTHORIZED PROSPECTING AND MINERAL COLLECTING”
Records covered by this Privacy Act System of Records Notices (SORN) are managed according to records retention schedules approved by NARA. Records schedules used to retain and manage records are found in Chapter 40 of Forest Service Handbook 6209.11—Records Management Handbook. This Handbook is available on the Forest Service website at
When applicable, paper records are kept in a locked or secured office or office building, and/or retained in a Forest Service secured computer system and can only be accessed by authorized Forest Service employees. Department/Forest Service safeguards electronic records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable automated systems' security and access policies. The Forest Service has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising stored information. System access, including access to records stored in an Agency approved repository (such as Pinyon or its successor), is limited to individuals with appropriate clearances or permissions who need to know the information for performance of official duties.
The NRM applications, which houses the information in this system, have Oracle roles defined in the database. These roles define what level of access a user assigned that Oracle role may have. The User Management Application (UMA) is used to assign these roles, as well as to determining what subsets of the data—referred to as organizational units—a user may have access. UMA has an automated process to request and approve access to applications on the NRM General Support System. A user requests specific roles and organizational codes that allow access to specific subsets of data. The request is automatically forwarded to the requester's UMA Manager who approves or denies the request. The UMA manager is responsible for determining what level of access a given user requires to fulfill job responsibilities.
Individuals seeking access to records contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest content, may submit a request in writing to the Forest Service FOIA/Privacy Act Officer (contact information at
The request should include a daytime phone number and email. Provide as much information as possible about the subject matter of the records you are requesting. This will help facilitate the search process.
If you are making a request for records about yourself, you may receive greater access by providing either a notarized statement or a statement signed under penalty of perjury stating that you are the person who you say you are.
Provide your full name, date, and either: (1) Have your signature witnessed by a notary; or (2) include the following statement immediately above the signature on your request letter: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date].” Requests that do not contain the required declaration will be processed under FOIA, and, if records are found, you may not receive as much information, including information about you. If additional information is required to fulfill a Privacy Act request, you will be notified.
If you want records about yourself to be released to a third party (such as a law firm or other organization requesting records on your behalf), the third party may receive greater access if they have permission from you.
You will need a signed and dated statement that the Forest Service may release records pertaining to you. Include your name; date of birth; name of the person or organization to whom you want your records disclosed (where applicable); their contact information; list of records that may be released (all, emails, medical records, etc.). The person about whom the records will be released should include a statement indicating that they understand that knowingly or willingly seeking or obtaining access to records about another person under false pretenses and or without their consent is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000.
Requests must be for access to existing records. The Forest Service FOIA Office will not create records for the purpose of responding to a FOIA or Privacy Act request.
FOIA excludes Federal agencies from its definition of persons permitted to make FOIA requests [
Any individual may contest information contained within a record in the system that pertains to him/her by submitting a written request to the system manager at the address above. Include the reason for contesting the record and the proposed amendment to the information with supporting documentation to show how the record is inaccurate.
Information to individuals is provided via:
• NRM Privacy Impact Analysis on the Department Privacy Impact Analysis website,
• The
• Forest Service-specific System of Records Notices are also published on the Forest Service website,
• Forms associated with Privacy Act systems are approved through the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (also cited in the
Any individual may request general information regarding this system of records or information as to whether the system contains records pertaining to him/her. All inquiries pertaining to this system should be in writing, must name the system of records as set forth in the system notice, and must contain the individual's name, telephone number, address, and email address (see specific instructions above).
None.
The Forest Service proposes to modify a system of records entitled “USDA/Forest Service-16 Mineral Lessees and Permittees System of Records” that will be used to maintain records of activities conducted by the Agency pursuant to its mission and responsibilities.
The City of Conroe, Texas, grantee of FTZ 265, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of LUC Urethanes, Inc. (LUC), located in Conroe, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 17, 2021.
The LUC facility is located within FTZ 265. The facility is used for the production of wheels, rollers and friction pads for industrial machinery and material conveyance. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt LUC from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, LUC would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to wheels, rollers and friction pads for industrial machinery and material conveyance (duty rate ranges from duty-free—3.1%). LUC would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Various chain extenders [1, 4 Butanediol; 2-Methylpropyl 3.5-diamino-4-chlorobenzoate; Trisopropanolamine; 1, 3-Bis(2-hydroxyethoxy) benzene; 4,4 methylene bis (2-chloroaniline); Hydroquinone bis (2-hydroxyethyl) ether; Trimethylol propane]; various prepolymers [Toluene diisocyanate; Poly(oxy-1, 4-butanediyl), alpha-hydro-omega-hydroxy-, polymer with 2, 4-diisocyanto-1-methylbenzene; Tolylene-2, 4-disocyante; Hexanedioic acid, polymer with 2, 4-diisocyanato-1-methylbenzene and 1, 2-ethanediol, isocyanate-terminated]; various polyols
The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable Section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 83, requesting authority to reorganize the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on June 29, 2021.
FTZ 83 was approved by the FTZ Board on February 24, 1983 (Board Order 209, 48 FR 9052, March 3, 1983) and expanded on October 30, 1989 (Board Order 447, 54 FR 46430, November 3, 1989) and July 1, 1992 (Board Order 585, 57 FR 30717, July 10, 1992).
The current zone includes the following sites:
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be Cherokee, Colbert, Cullman, DeKalb, Franklin, Jackson, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Limestone, Madison, Marshall, Marion, Morgan and Winston Counties, Alabama, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed service area is within and adjacent to the Huntsville U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone to include both existing sites as “magnet” sites. The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the “sunset” time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that Site 1 be so exempted. No subzones/usage-driven sites are being requested at this time. The application would have no impact on FTZ 83's previously authorized subzones.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
On March 2, 2021, Zoetis Services, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 59E, in Lincoln, Nebraska.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On March 2, 2021, Liebel-Flarsheim Company, LLC, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 93, in Raleigh, North Carolina.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On March 2, 2021, Merck & Co., Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 185C, in Elkton Virginia.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) published a notice of opportunity to request administrative reviews of orders, findings, or suspended investigations with anniversary dates in March 2021 in the
Brenda E. Brown, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
In the
International Trade Administration, U.S. Commercial Service, 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 September 7, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to John Seo, Senior Economist, International Trade Administration, or by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to John Seo, Senior Economist, International Trade Administration, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-7497 or
The International Trade Administration's (ITA) Global Markets/U.S. Commercial Service (CS) is
The dissemination of international market information and potential business opportunities for U.S. exporters are critical components of the Commercial Service's export assistance programs and services. U.S. companies conveniently access and indicate their interest in these services by completing the appropriate forms via ITA and CS U.S. Export Assistance Center websites.
The CS works closely with clients to educate them about the exporting/importing process and to help prepare them for exporting/importing. When a client is ready to begin the exporting/importing process our field staff provide counseling to assist in the development of an exporting strategy. We provide fee-based, export-related services designed to help client export/import. The type of export-related service that is proposed to a client depends upon a client's business goals and where they are in the export/import process. Some clients are at the beginning of the export process and require assistance with identifying potential distributors, whereas other clients may be ready to sign a contract with a potential distributor and require due diligence assistance. Before the CS can provide export-related services to clients, such as assistance with identifying potential partners or providing due diligence, specific information is required to determine the client's business objectives and needs. For example, before we can provide a service to identify potential business partners we need to know whether the client would like a potential partner to have specific technical qualifications, coverage in a specific market, English or foreign language ability or warehousing requirements. This information collection is designed to elicit such data so that appropriate services can be proposed and conducted to most effectively meet the client's exporting goals. Without these forms the CS is unable to provide services when requested by clients.
The forms ask U.S. exporters standard questions about their company details, export experience, information about the products or services they wish to export and exporting goals. A few questions are tailored to a specific program type and will vary slightly with each program. CS staff use this information to gain an understanding of client's needs and objectives so that they can provide appropriate and effective export assistance tailored to an exporter's requirements.
CS is seeking approval for the following data collection methods to provide flexibility for how clients will provide information about their company details, export experience, information about the products or services they wish to export and exporting goals. Clients will be asked to provide their information on our website (
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.
U.S. Commercial Service, International Trade Administration, 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 September 7, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to John Seo (
The International Trade Administration provides a multitude of international trade related programs to help U.S. businesses. These programs include information products, services, and trade events. To accomplish its mission effectively, ITA needs ongoing feedback on its programs. This information collection item allows ITA to solicit clients' opinions about the use of ITA products, services, and trade events. To promote optimal use and provide focused and effective improvements to ITA programs, we are requesting approval for this clearance package; including: Use of Comment Cards (
The International Trade Administration is seeking approval for the following data collection methods to provide flexibility in conducting customer satisfaction surveys and to reduce the burden on respondents: (1) An email message delivering a hot link to a web enabled survey with an email reminder sent if the client does not respond to the survey within two weeks; (2) a telephone survey/interview; and (3) a web-enabled survey conducted in-person at trade shows/events via a laptop, tablet or mobile phone so participants can immediately respond without having to provide their email address.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from the Russian Federation (Russia). The period of investigation is January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable July 6, 2021.
George Ayache or Joseph Dowling, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2623 or (202) 482-1646, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on February 23, 2021.
The product covered by this investigation is granular PTFE resin from Russia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
The Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum establishes the deadline to submit scope case briefs.
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final determination in this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of granular PTFE resin from Russia based on a request made by the petitioner.
Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated 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,
Commerce calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for Joint Stock Company “HaloPolymer” (HaloPolymer), the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated rate is not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this preliminary determination within five days of the date of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on-site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Interested parties will be notified of the timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments on non-scope issues at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in these case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If Commerce's final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final injury determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The product covered by this investigation is granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin. Granular PTFE resin is covered by the scope of this investigation whether filled or unfilled, whether or not modified, and whether or not containing co-polymer, additives, pigments, or other materials. Also included is PTFE wet raw polymer. The chemical formula for granular PTFE resin is C2F4, and the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number is 9002-84-0.
Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by filling, modifying, compounding, packaging with another product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the granular PTFE resin.
The product covered by this investigation does not include dispersion or coagulated dispersion (also known as fine powder) PTFE.
PTFE further processed into micropowder, having particle size typically ranging from 1 to 25 microns, and a melt-flow rate no less than 0.1 gram/10 minutes, is excluded from the scope of this investigation.
Granular PTFE resin is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 3904.61.0010. Subject merchandise may also be classified under HTSUS subheading 3904.69.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS Number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of these expedited sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping as indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable July 6, 2021.
Allison Hollander or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2805 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
On March 31, 2021, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the AD orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Indonesia, Malaysia, the People's Republic of China (China), Taiwan, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)
Commerce received adequate substantive responses to the
The merchandise subject to the
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of dumping margins likely to prevail if the order was revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which 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
Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(c) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the 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.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India. The period of investigation is April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable July 6, 2021.
Janaé Martin or Joshua Simonidis, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0238 or (202) 482-0608, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on February 23, 2021.
The product covered by this investigation is granular PTFE resin from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
The Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum establishes the deadline to submit scope case briefs.
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
Commerce notes that in making these preliminary findings, it relied in part on facts available, and because it finds that the Government of India did not act to the best of its ability to respond to Commerce's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
In accordance with section 703(e)(1) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of granular PTFE resin from India for Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited (GFCL) and all other exporters or producers not individually examined. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's analysis,
In accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final determination in this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of granular PTFE resin from India based on a request made by the petitioner.
Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated 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 zero and
Commerce calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for GFCL, the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated rate is not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Section 703(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise from India. In accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise from all exporters and producers of subject merchandise from India that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this preliminary determination within five days of the date of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination. Normally, Commerce verifies information using standard procedures, including an on-site examination of original accounting, financial, and sales documentation. However, due to current travel restrictions in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Commerce is unable to conduct on-site verification in this investigation. Accordingly, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making the final determination through alternative means in lieu of an on-site verification.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Interested parties will be notified of the timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments on non-scope issues at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in these case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final injury determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The product covered by this investigation is granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin. Granular PTFE resin is covered by the scope of this investigation whether filled or unfilled, whether or not modified, and whether or not containing co-polymer, additives, pigments, or other materials. Also included is PTFE wet raw polymer. The chemical formula for granular PTFE resin is C2 F4, and the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number is 9002-84-0.
Subject merchandise includes material matching the above description that has been finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, including by filling, modifying, compounding, packaging with another product, or performing any other finishing, packaging, or processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the granular PTFE resin.
The product covered by this investigation does not include dispersion or coagulated dispersion (also known as fine powder) PTFE.
PTFE further processed into micropowder, having particle size typically ranging from 1 to 25 microns, and a melt-flow rate no less than 0.1 gram/10 minutes, is excluded from the scope of this investigation.
Granular PTFE resin is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 3904.61.0010. Subject merchandise may also be classified under HTSUS subheading 3904.69.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS Number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders and findings with May anniversary dates. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Applicable July 6, 2021.
Brenda E. Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various AD and CVD orders and findings with May anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify Commerce within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 35 days of publication of the initiation
In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, the following guidelines regarding collapsing of companies for purposes of respondent selection will apply. In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China), Commerce intends to select respondents based on volume data contained in responses to Q&V questionnaires. Further, Commerce intends to limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued in the review based on CBP data for U.S. imports of aluminum extrusions from China. The extremely wide variety of individual types of aluminum extrusion products included in the scope of the order on aluminum extrusions would preclude meaningful results in attempting to determine the largest China exporters of subject merchandise by volume. Therefore, Commerce will limit the number of Q&V questionnaires issued based on the import values in CBP data which will serve as a proxy for imported quantities. Parties subject to the review to which Commerce does not send a Q&V questionnaire may file a response to the Q&V questionnaire by the applicable deadline if they desire to be included in the pool of companies from which Commerce will select mandatory respondents. The Q&V questionnaire will be available on Commerce's website at
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of a particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act.
Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of initial responses to section D of the questionnaire.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, Commerce analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, Commerce assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, Commerce requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on Commerce's website at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
Exporters and producers must file a timely Separate Rate Application or Certification if they want to be considered for respondent selection. Furthermore, exporters and producers who submit a Separate Rate Application or Certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following AD and CVD orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than May 31, 2022.
None.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an AD order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), Commerce, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether AD duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant “gap” period of the order (
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (
Commerce's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information using the formats provided at the end of the
Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 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 September 7, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to Maureen O'Reilly, Management Analyst, NIST, by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Melissa Davis, NIST, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, MS4800, 240-277-0269,
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a national network of locally based manufacturing extension centers that assists small- and medium-sized manufacturers to improve their productivity, improve profitability, and enhance their economic competitiveness. The information collected will provide the MEP with information regarding MEP Center performance regarding the delivery of technology, and business solutions to U.S.-based manufacturers. The collected information will assist in determining the performance of the MEP Centers at both local and national levels, provide information critical to monitoring and reporting on MEP programmatic performance and assist management in policy decisions. Responses to the collection of information are mandatory per the regulations governing the operation of the MEP Program (15 CFR parts 290, 291, 292, and H.R. 1274—section 2). The information collected will include center inputs and activities including services delivered, clients served, center staff, quarterly expenses and revenues, partners, strategic plan, operation plans, and client success stories. No confidentiality for information submitted is promised or provided. In order to reflect new initiatives and new data needs, NIST MEP has identified a need to revise its existing reporting processes by modifying existing reporting elements that will enable NIST MEP to better monitor and assess the extent to which the Centers are meeting program goals and milestones.
The information will be collected from the MEP Centers through the MEP Enterprise Information System (MEIS),
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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will hold an online meeting to consider information on marine planning and offshore development planning and activities. This meeting is open to the public.
The online meeting will be held Thursday, July 22, 2021 and Friday, July 23, 2021, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time, each day. Exact meeting times may be adjusted in advance, and the meeting may be adjourned early if work for that day has been completed. The meeting agenda with specific times will be posted to the Pacific Council website in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be held online. Specific meeting information, including directions on how to join the meeting and system requirements will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Kerry Griffin, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2409.
Representatives of the United States Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Pacific Council will present information related to the planning process for identifying potential offshore wind energy sites in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Representatives of Pacific Council Advisory Bodies will consider the information presented, provide feedback and advice, and develop reports to the Pacific Council for its consideration. A meeting agenda will be posted to the Pacific Council's website in advance of the meeting.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt
16 U.S.C. 1901
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Jane Provancha, Herndon Solutions Group, LLC., 2562 Meadow Lane, Cocoa, FL 32926 and the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149 (Responsible Party: Lisa Desfosse), have applied in due form for permits to take green (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 5, 2021.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Amy Hapeman or Erin Markin, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The purpose of this information collection is to obtain human dimensions information from residents in Puerto Rico. Specifically, NOAA is seeking information on the behaviors and activities related to coral reefs, as well as information on perceptions of coral reef conditions and attitudes toward specific reef conservation activities. The survey has a core set of questions that are the same for all jurisdictions to allow for information to be tracked over time. To account for geographical, cultural and linguistic differences between jurisdictions, the survey questions include items that are specific to the local context and developed based on jurisdictional partner feedback.
We intend to use the information collected through this survey instrument for research purposes, as well as for measuring and improving the results of our reef protection programs. Because many of our efforts to protect reefs rely on education and changing attitudes toward reef protection, the information collected will allow CRCP to ensure that programs are designed appropriately at the start, future program evaluation efforts are as
This information collection request may be viewed at
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 September 7, 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 Cynthia Ferrio, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930, (978) 281-9180,
This request is for revision of a current information collection. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce has the responsibility for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources. Much of this responsibility has been delegated to NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Under this stewardship role, the Secretary was given certain regulatory authorities to ensure the most beneficial uses of these resources. One of the regulatory steps taken to carry out the conservation and management objectives is to collect information from users of the resources.
The Secretary has enacted rules to issue permits to individuals and organizations participating in federally controlled fisheries. Permits are necessary to: (1) Register fishermen, fishing vessels, fish dealers and processors; (2) list the characteristics of fishing vessels and/or dealer/processor operations; (3) exercise influence over compliance (
This collection is being revised to introduce a new online permitting system (FishOnline) to allow individuals and organizations to apply and renew their fishing vessel permits, operator permits, dealer permits, Letter of Authorization (LOA), and gillnet certificates.
This collection also includes the requirement for participants in certain fisheries to use onboard vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and to notify NMFS before fishing trips for the purpose of observer placement. Other permitting in this collection includes the written request to participate in any of the various exemption programs offered in the Greater Atlantic region.
Exemption programs may allow a vessel to fish in an area that is limited to vessels of a particular size, using a certain gear type, or fishing for a particular species. This collection also contains paperwork required for vessel owners to request gillnet and lobster trap tags through the Greater Atlantic region permit office.
Lastly, vessel owners that own multiple vessels, but would like to request communication from NMFS be consolidated into one mailing (and not separate mailings for each vessel), may request the single letter vessel owner option to improve efficiency of their business practice.
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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel (NTAP) Working Group will hold a public webinar meeting.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 21, 2021, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held via webinar. Details on the proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials will be posted at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
This meeting was rescheduled from June 18, 2021 to July 21, 2021 due to the new Juneteenth federal holiday. The purpose of this rescheduled meeting is for the NTAP Working Group to discuss (1) objectives of the restrictor cable research, (2) scope and timing of the research, and (3) prepare documentation for reporting out to the full panel.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other
16 U.S.C.
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The New Hampshire Coastal Risk and Hazards Commission (CRHC) was established by the State Legislature through RSA 483-E on July 2, 2013. The purpose of the Commission, as stated in the law, is to “recommend legislation, rules and other actions to prepare for projected sea-level rise and other coastal watershed hazards such as storms, increased river flooding and storm water runoff, and the risks such hazards pose to municipalities and the state assets in New Hampshire.” Further, in carrying out this charge, the Commission is specifically directed to “review National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other scientific agency projections of coastal storm inundation and flood risk to determine the appropriate information, data, and property risks” to incorporate into its recommendations.
In 2016, the CRCH recommended the development of a “comprehensive, integrated New Hampshire Coastal Shoreline Management Plan (CSMP) that presents general priorities for coastal shoreline management, as well as site-specific and place-based strategies including, where appropriate, protection, adaptation, and abandonment.” Following a New Hampshire Shoreline Management workshop organized by GBNERR in 2014 and consistent with CRHC Recommendation BL6, NHCP has prioritized living shoreline assessment and implementation in its five-year strategy to enhance coastal management (309 Strategy, 2015) and set a longer term goal to develop a Tidal Shoreline Management Plan (TSMP) for New Hampshire.
The National Ocean Service (NOS) proposes to collect economic data to document perceived effects of weather and climate events and adaptation strategies, to assess probable public benefits that would be derived from shoreline treatment options within coastal New Hampshire, and to establish a baseline for future monitoring of NOAA's success in meeting its mandates and obligations.
Respondents will be randomly sampled from households (1) within New Hampshire, (2) within block groups in Maine adjacent to the Piscataqua River, and (3) within block groups in Massachusetts adjacent to the Hampton-Seabrook Estuary. Questions will explore such issues as participation in recreational activities, familiarity with weather and climate effects and adaptation methods, sense of place, and opinions on shoreline treatment options. No PII will be collected. The final collection will support the development of a CSMP for New Hampshire as well as provide information to help inform local coastal zone management and planning.
Upon analysis of the pre-test data and guidance from experts in survey methodology, the following changes were made to enhance understanding, response rate, and to minimize respondent burden:
•
•
•
• Questions 14h and 14i were removed based on pre-test results to reduce burden without decreasing data quality.
• Questions 16-21 originally asked respondents to indicate their preference to six unique policy options, but now respondents are asked to compare three sets of unique policy options. Pre-test results suggested that respondents would prefer to compare policies rather than rate them individually, and comparing three sets of policy options should reduce burden while increasing data quality.
•
•
•
•
•
• A question has been added to ask how long the respondent has been a
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meetings.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will host webinars in connection with the three new broadband grant programs authorized and funded by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021: The Broadband Infrastructure Program, the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, and the Connecting Minority Communities Pilot Program. The webinars are designed to help prospective applicants understand the grant programs and to assist applicants to prepare high quality grant applications.
NTIA will offer webinars on the following dates:
These are virtual meetings. NTIA will post the registration information on its BroadbandUSA website,
Maci Morin, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4872, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4884; email:
Division N, Title IX—Broadband internet Access Service, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260) authorized and funded three new broadband grant programs to be administered by NTIA: The Broadband Infrastructure Program, the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, and the Connecting Minority Community Pilot Program. On March 19, 2021, NTIA published a Notice in the
Details on specific webinars, their contents, and webinar registration information will be posted on the BroadbandUSA website,
These webinars are subject to change. Webinar time changes will be posted on the BroadbandUSA website,
The presentation and recording of each webinar will be posted on the BroadbandUSA website at
The public is invited to participate in these webinars. The webinars are open to the public and press. Pre-registration is required as space is limited to the first 1,000 participants. NTIA asks each registrant to provide their first and last name, city, state, zip code, job title, organization and email address for registration purposes.
Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify the NTIA contact listed above at least ten (10) business days before the meeting. General questions and comments are welcome via email to
Wednesday, July 14, 2021; 10 a.m.
This meeting will be conducted by remote means.
Commission Meeting—Closed to the Public.
Decisional Matter.
Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, Division of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 (cell).
Wednesday July 7, 2021; 10 a.m.
This meeting will be conducted by remote means.
Commission Meeting—Closed to the Public.
Decisional Matter.
Wednesday, July 7, 2021; 11 a.m.
This meeting will be conducted by remote means.
Commission Meeting—Closed to the Public.
Briefing Matter.
Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, Division of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 (cell).
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on the renewal of collection of information that DOE is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The renewal of the collection of information relates to DOE's Superior Energy Performance certification and 50001 Ready recognition programs.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 7, 2021. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Written comments may be sent to Ethan Rogers, EE-5A/Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, by fax at 202-287-6093, or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Ethan Rogers, EE-5A/Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, by fax at 202-287-6093, or by email at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the approved collection of information remains necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
SEP 50001 builds on the ISO 50001 energy management system standard and provides a rigorous, internationally recognized business process for companies to continually improve their energy performance. The SEP third-party verification of energy performance improvement is unique in the marketplace and assists to differentiate certified companies from their competitors. This request for information consists of a voluntary data collection process for SEP participation: To manage participation, track certification cycles, and relay the costs and benefits of SEP certification to industry. 50001 Ready collects a lesser amount of self-attested information to manage and track recognition cycles and to recognize the achievements of its participants.
Four types of information are collected from SEP 50001's primary participants: (1) Background data, including contact information and basic information about the facility's experience with energy management—collected in the SEP 50001 Application Form; (2) Basic facility information about its energy use, energy consumption, and energy performance indicators—also collected in the SEP 50001 Application Form; (3) Information on energy performance improvement in certified facilities—collected in the SEP 50001 Energy Performance Improvement Report. 50001 Ready collects only a subset of the same types of information in categories (1), (2), and (3), and without the need for external audit. The program's online system, the 50001 Ready Navigator, enables participants to submit this information.
Background data will primarily be used to track basic information about SEP and 50001 Ready participants and identify opportunities to provide participants with technical assistance. Basic information about a facility's energy use, energy consumption, and energy performance indicators will be used to administer each program. Information on energy performance improvement will be used by DOE to manage and track participation cycles, and to track the results of participating in SEP and 50001 Ready. Responses to the DOE's Information Collection Request will be voluntary.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Bonneville Power Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), invites public comment on a collection of information that BPA is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 15, 2021.
Written comments may be sent to Bonneville Power Administration, Attn: Theodore Rydmark, Privacy Program, CGI-7, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208-3621, or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Attn: Theodore Rydmark, Privacy Program, by email at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of renewal.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and in accordance with Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee will be renewed for a two-year period beginning on June 28, 2021. The Committee will provide advice to the Director, Office of Science (DOE), on the Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program managed by the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research. Additionally, the renewal of the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee has been determined to be essential to the conduct of the Department of Energy business and to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy, by law and agreement. The Committee will operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, adhering to the rules and regulations in implementation of that Act.
Christine Chalk at (301) 903-5152 or email:
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 29, 2021, by Miles Fernandez, Acting Committee Management Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This document provides notification of EPA's approvals and denials of applications for test marketing exemptions (TMEs) submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for certain new chemicals. The test marketing conditions are described in the TME applications and in this document.
This action may be of interest to the chemical manufacturers and/or importers who submitted the TMEs to EPA and to the public in general. The Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0578, is available at
Please note that due to the public health emergency the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March 31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will continue to provide customer service via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA/DC services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/DC and Reading Room, please visit
TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to exempt persons from premanufacture notification (PMN) requirements and permit them to manufacture (which includes import) new chemicals for test marketing purposes, if the Agency finds that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemicals for test marketing purposes will not present any unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified by the Administrator for the specific conditions of use identified in the applications. The requirement to consider risks to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation was added to TSCA section 5(h)(1) in 2016. EPA's regulations implementing TSCA section 5(h)(1) are found at 40 CFR 720.38.
TSCA section 5(h)(6) requires EPA to publish in the
EPA is publishing this document to announce TME approvals and denials. EPA determined that test marketing the new chemicals, under the conditions in the TME applications, will not present any unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment; the Agency approved the TMEs listed in Unit IV. For those TMEs for which EPA made this approval after TSCA was amended in June 2016 by the Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, EPA's determination included an assessment of unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified by the Agency for the specific conditions of use identified in the applications.
EPA has denied the following TMEs because EPA was unable to determine that test marketing the new chemicals, under the conditions in the TME applications will not present any unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. For those TMEs for which EPA made this denial after TSCA was amended in June 2016, EPA's determination included an assessment of unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified by the Agency for the specific conditions of use identified in the applications.
The test market time period, production volume, number of customers, and use must not exceed specifications in the applications. All other conditions and restrictions described in the applications and in this document must also be met.
EPA may impose restrictions considered appropriate by the Agency on test marketing activities and may modify or revoke this test marketing exemption upon receipt of any information that indicates the test marketing activity may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. The following additional restrictions apply to these TMEs: A bill of lading accompanying each shipment must state that the use of the chemical is restricted to that approved in the TME. In addition, the applicant shall maintain the following records for 5 years after the date they are created, and shall make them available for inspection or copying in accordance with TSCA section 11:
1. Records of the quantity of the TME chemical produced and the date of manufacture.
2. Records of dates of the shipments to each customer and the quantities supplied in each shipment.
3. Copies of the bill of lading that accompanies each shipment of the TME chemical.
EPA did not identify unreasonable health or environmental risks for the test market chemicals under the intended conditions of use described in the TME applications. Therefore, the test market activities will not present any unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified by the Administrator for the specific conditions of use identified in the applications.
The Agency reserves the right to rescind approval or modify the conditions and restrictions of an exemption upon the receipt or evaluation of any information, new or existing, that indicates the test marketing activities may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office requests public nominations of scientific experts to form the SAB 2021 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Panel.
Nominations should be submitted by July 27, 2021 per the instructions below.
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this notice and request for nominations may contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office by telephone/voice mail (202) 564-2073 or email at
The EPA established the STAA in 1980 to recognize Agency scientists and engineers who published their work in the peer-reviewed literature. The STAA Program is an agency-wide competition to promote and recognize scientific and technological achievements by EPA employees. The STAA program is administered and managed by the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). Each year the SAB has been asked to review the EPA's STAA nominations and make recommendations to the Administrator for monetary awards.
For the EPA SAB Staff Office a balanced review committee includes
The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial conflicts of interest will include a review of the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Environmental Protection Agency Special Government Employees” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form is required and allows government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between a person's public responsibilities (which include membership on an EPA federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded through the “Ethics Requirements for Advisors” link on the SAB website at
The approved policy under which the EPA SAB Office selects members for subcommittees and review panels is described in the following document:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Final notice of information collection—uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures—extension without change.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission gives notice that it has submitted the information described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a three-year extension without change.
Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before August 5, 2021.
Written comments should be sent within 30 days of publication of this final notice to
Kathleen Oram, Assistant Legal Counsel, at (202) 921-2665 or
On April 26, 2021, the Commission published a 60-Day Notice informing the public of its intent to request an extension without change of the information collection requirements from the Office of Management and Budget, and providing its PRA burden analysis for UGESP. 86 FR 22049 (April 26, 2021). The Commission received one comment in response to the 60-Day Notice. This comment notes that UGESP, since its 1978 adoption, has used the verb “should” to characterize employers' duties to collect and maintain information and to analyze the validity of employment selection procedures or tests. The comment appears to be arguing against construing “should” to mean “must” by commenting that, if EEOC in fact did construe “should” to mean “must,” then EEOC's PRA burden calculation in the 60-Day Notice would be too low to cover all the activities enumerated in UGESP.
EEOC does not express a view here on the meaning of the term “should” in UGESP except to refer readers to the subsection of UGESP's Definitions section that explains how to interpret the word “`should' as used in these guidelines.”
From the PRA perspective, EEOC correctly construes the PRA burden analysis requirements. For purposes of calculating the PRA burden of a federal “collection of information” like UGESP, the phrase “collection of information” focuses on “the act of collecting . . . information.” 5 CFR 1620.3(c). The PRA analysis of burden, in turn, refers to a calculation of the time and cost used by the regulated entity to engage in the act of collecting and maintaining the specified information.
The only paperwork burden derives from this recordkeeping. Only employers covered under Title VII and Executive Order 11246 are subject to UGESP. However, for the purposes of burden calculation, data for all employers are counted.
This burden assessment is based on an estimate of the number of job applications submitted to all employers in one year, including paper-based and electronic applications. The total number of job applications submitted every year to covered employers is estimated to be 1,989,375,182, based on an average of approximately 29 applications
The employer burden associated with collecting and storing applicant demographic data is based on the following assumptions: Applicants would need to be asked to provide three pieces of information—sex, race/ethnicity, and an identification number (a total of approximately 13 keystrokes); the employer may need to transfer information received to a database either manually or electronically (although we believe it likely that many employers utilize HR software that handles employment applications as well as the rest of the employers HR needs); and the employer would need to store the 13 characters of information for each applicant. Recordkeeping costs and burden are assumed to be the time cost associated with entering 13 keystrokes.
Assuming that the required recordkeeping takes 30 seconds per record, and assuming a total of 1,989,375,182 paper and electronic applications per year (as calculated above), the resulting UGESP burden hours would be16,578,127. Based on a wage rate of $17.44
While the burden hours and costs for the UGESP recordkeeping requirement seem very large, the average burden per employer is relatively small. We estimate that UGESP applies to 957,005 employers, which is about 15.3% of all employers in the U.S, and who employ about 87.7% of all employees in the U.S (86.5% of private employees and 95.9% of government employees)
For the Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The agency must receive comments on or before September 7, 2021.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Rolanda F. Smith, 202-418-2054.
The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: GEORGIA-CAROLINA RADIOCASTING COMPANY, LLC,
Federal Communications Commission.
Public notice.
The Commission announces the effective date of new application fee rates for the Office of Engineering and Technology and for Media Services.
Applicable July 15, 2021.
Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0444.
The Commission adopted new application fee rates in a
On December 23, 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order implementing a new application fee schedule which significantly updated the Commission's previous fee schedule.
For further information regarding this Public Notice, please contact Roland Helvajian, Program Analyst, Financial Operations, Office of the Managing Director,
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it can further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before August 5, 2021.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
The national do-not-call registry supplements the company-specific do-not-call rules for those consumers who wish to request that particular companies not call them. Any company that is asked by a consumer, including an existing customer, not to call again must honor that request for five (5) years. A provision of the Commission's rules, however, allows consumers to give specific companies permission to call them through an express written agreement. Nonprofit organizations, companies with whom consumers have an established business relationship, and calls to persons with whom the telemarketer has a personal relationship are exempt from the “do-not-call” registry requirements.
On September 21, 2004, the Commission released the Safe Harbor Order, published at 69 FR 60311, October 8, 2004, establishing a limited safe harbor in which persons will not be liable for placing autodialed and prerecorded message calls to numbers ported from a wireline service within the previous 15 days. The Commission also amended its existing National Do-Not-Call Registry safe harbor to require telemarketers to scrub their lists against the Registry every 31 days.
On June 17, 2008, in accordance with the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007, the Commission revised its rules to minimize the inconvenience to consumers of having to re-register their preferences not to receive telemarketing calls and to further the underlying goal of the National Do-Not-Call Registry to protect consumer privacy rights. The Commission released a Report and Order in CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 08-147, published at 73 FR 40183, July 14, 2008, amending the Commission's rules under the TCPA to require sellers and/or telemarketers to honor registrations with the National Do-Not-Call Registry so that registrations will not automatically expire based on the five-year registration period. Specifically, the Commission modified § 64.1200(c)(2) of its rules to require sellers and/or telemarketers to honor numbers registered on the Registry indefinitely or until the number is removed by the database administrator
On February 15, 2012, the Commission released a Report and Order in CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 12-21, originally published at 77 FR 34233, June 11, 2012, and later corrected at 77 FR 66935, November 8, 2012, revising its rules to: (1) Require prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and for all prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential lines; (2) eliminate the established business relationship exception to the consent requirement for prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential lines; (3) require telemarketers to include an automated, interactive opt-out mechanism in all prerecorded telemarketing calls to allow consumers more easily to opt out of future robocalls; and (4) require telemarketers to comply with the 3% limit on abandoned calls during each calling campaign, in order to discourage intrusive calling campaigns.
Finally, the Commission also exempted from the TCPA requirements informational artificial or prerecorded voice message calls to residential lines. On December 30, 2020, the Commission released a Report and Order in CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 20-186, published at 86 FR 11443, February 25, 2021, amending the TCPA exemptions for artificial or prerecorded voice calls made to residential telephone lines so each satisfies the TRACED Act's requirements to identify who can call, who can be called, and any call limits. The Commission adopted limits on the number of calls that can be made under the exemptions for non-commercial calls to a residence; commercial calls to a residence that do not include an advertisement or constitute telemarketing; tax-exempt nonprofit organization calls to a residence; and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-related calls to a residence. In addition, callers must have mechanisms in place to allow consumers to opt out of any future calls. This action will empower consumers to further limit the number of unwanted robocalls made under any TCPA exemption.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for each of the following insured depository institutions, was charged with the duty of winding up the affairs of the former institutions and liquidating all related assets. The Receiver has fulfilled its obligations and made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary, including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments, and deeds. Effective on the termination dates listed above, the Receiverships have been terminated, the Receiver has been discharged, and the Receiverships have ceased to exist as legal entities.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 86 FR 7725, dated February 2, 2021) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Deputy Director for Non-Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Section C-B, Organization and Functions is hereby amended as follows:
Delete in its entirety the titles and mission and function statements for the
Retitle
Retitle
Administration on Disabilities (AoD), Administration for Community Living (ACL), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of reallotment of FY 2021 funds.
The Administration on Disabilities (AoD) intends to reallot funds under the authority of the Development Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 which states: “If the Secretary determines that an amount of an allotment to a State for a period (of a fiscal year or longer) will not be required by the State during the period for the purpose for which the allotment was made, the Secretary may reallot the amount.”
Funds will be realloted after August 13, 2021 and before September 30, 2021.
Allison Cruz, Office of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Administration on Disabilities, Administration for Community Living, 330 C St. SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone (202) 795-7408. Email
AoD will be reallotting FY 2021 funds awarded to the State Council on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD) located within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This determination is based on the limited reported expenditures and requests for reimbursement over the last several years from the SCDD in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The Puerto Rico SCDD will have up to $1.8 million rescinded and proportionately redistributed to the remaining SCDDs. SCDDs that receive FY 2021 realloted funds will have through the end of FY 2022 to obligate the funds and until the end of FY 2023 to liquidate the funds. Realloted funds for the SCDDs must be used according to the terms as outlined in the FY 2021 Notice of Award for each program.
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 meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 a meeting of the National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council.
The meeting will be open to the public. Individuals who plan to participate and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. 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:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee management; notice of open federal advisory committee meeting.
The Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (Board) will meet virtually on Tuesday, August 31, 2021. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will take place on Tuesday, August 31, 2021, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting may close early if the Board has completed its business.
Members of the public who wish to participate in the virtual conference should contact Deborah Gartrell-Kemp as listed in the
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Board as listed in the
•
•
The Board will meet virtually on Tuesday, August 31, 2021. The meeting will be open to the public. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
The purpose of the Board is to review annually the programs of the National Fire Academy (Academy) and advise the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the United States Fire Administrator, on the operation of the Academy and any improvements therein that the Board
On Tuesday, August 31, 2021, there will be four sessions, with deliberations and voting at the end of each session as necessary:
1. The Board will discuss United States Fire Administration Data, Research, Prevention and Response.
2. The Board will discuss deferred maintenance and capital improvements on the National Emergency Training Center campus and Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request/Budget Planning.
3. The Board will deliberate and vote on recommendations on Academy program activities to include developments, deliveries, staffing, and admissions.
4. There will also be an update on the Board of Visitors Subcommittee Groups for the Professional Development Initiative Update and the National Fire Incident Report System.
There will be a 10-minute comment period after each agenda item and each speaker will be given no more than 2 minutes to speak. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated following the last call for comments. Contact Deborah Gartrell-Kemp to register as a speaker. Meeting materials will be posted at
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the revision of OMB Collection 2502-0605. HUD is proposing to remove from the collection Form HUD-90011t-ORCF,
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments:
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
John M. Hartung, Director, Policy, Risk Management and Lender Relations Division, Office of Residential Care Facilities, Office of Healthcare Programs, Office of Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1222 Spruce Street, Room 3.203, St. Louis, MO 63103-2836; telephone (314) 418-5238 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for a revision to an information collection. HUD is revising the information collection to remove Form HUD-90011t-ORCF, which was approved for use under the temporary Operating Loss Loan Section 232/223(d)—COVID program. The temporary Operating Loss Loan Section 232/223(d)—COVID program expires on August 31, 2021.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency'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 those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 7, 2021.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to U.S. Geological Survey, Information Collections Officer, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 159, Reston, VA 20192; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Elizabeth S. Sangine by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the USGS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or
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 authorities for this action are the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (Museum) at the University of Oklahoma has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Museum at the address in this notice by August 5, 2021.
Dr. Marc Levine, Associate Curator of Archaeology, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, 2401 Chautauqua Avenue, Norman, OK 73072-7029, telephone (405) 325-1994, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Marshall County, OK.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of The Chickasaw Nation and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
On April 2, 1942, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Wheeler Farm site (34Ma23) in Marshall County, OK. The site was excavated by the Works Progress Administration under the direction of the University of Oklahoma, and the excavated materials were transferred to the Museum the same year. The human remains include a complete skeleton, probably male, 35-50 years old. No known individual was identified. The 77 associated funerary objects are: One historic coarse earthenware vessel, one ceramic pipe, 36 faunal bones, two brass hooks with small leather fragments of a firearm holster, three brass rivets, nine brass buttons, one brass small rivet with leather fragments still attached, two unidentified brass fragments, five iron buckles, three iron 4-holed buttons, one unidentified iron fragment, one iron butcher knife, one iron muzzle loading pistol, one iron ramrod for the pistol, one iron screw, one iron spoon (found inside the vessel), and eight leather fragments.
The Wheeler Farm Site is Historic in age (1830s-1870s). The site has been determined to be culturally affiliated with The Chickasaw Nation and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, based on the location of the site, associated
Officials of the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 77 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects The Chickasaw Nation and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Marc Levine, Associate Curator of Archaeology, Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, 2401 Chautauqua Avenue, Norman, OK 73072-7029, telephone (405) 325-1994, email
The Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying The Chickasaw Nation and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meets the definition of sacred objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the FBI. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the FBI at the address in this notice by August 5, 2021.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Headquarters, Attn: Supervisory Special Agent Timothy Carpenter, Art Theft Program, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20535, telephone (954) 931-3670, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC, that meet the definition of sacred objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
At an unknown date, 12 sacred objects were acquired and transported to Indiana, where they became part of a private collection of Native American antiquities, art, and cultural heritage. In the spring of 2014, these items were seized by the FBI as part of a criminal investigation. The 12 items are identified as catlinite pipes from the Swan Creek archeological site (39WW7), a known ancestral Arikara and Mandan village located on the Missouri River, in Walworth County, South Dakota. Based on information obtained during consultation with an official representative of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, and on archeological information contained in reports for the Swan Creek site, the FBI has determined that the pipes are culturally affiliated with that Indian Tribe.
Officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the 12 cultural items are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred objects and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Headquarters, Attn: Supervisory Special Agent Timothy Carpenter, Art Theft Program, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20535, telephone (954) 931-3670, email
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Michigan State University has completed an inventory of human remains in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to Michigan State University. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Michigan State University at the address in this notice by August 5, 2021.
Judith Stoddart, Associate Provost for University Collections and Arts Initiatives, Michigan State University, 466 W Circle Drive, East Lansing, MI 48824-1044, telephone (517) 432-2524, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. The human remains were removed from LaPorte County, IN.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Michigan State University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan [previously listed as Huron Potawatomi, Inc.]; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Wyandotte Nation; and two non-federally recognized Indian groups, the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians.
An invitation to consult was extended to the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana [previously listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana]; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation [previously listed as Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas]; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Shawnee Tribe; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota.
Hereafter, all Indian Tribes and groups listed in this section are referred to as “The Consulted and Notified Tribes and Groups.”
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a mound in LaPorte County, IN. The human remains (registration number 6505 CW) were acquired by Eugene Davis who, in turn, gave the human remains to the Chamberlain Memorial Museum in Three Oaks, Michigan. The Chamberlain Memorial Museum was founded in 1916, by Mr. Edward K. Warren. In September of 1952, Michigan State College Museum (now Michigan State University Museum) acquired the contents of the Chamberlain Memorial Museum from Fred P. Warren, President of the Board of Trustees of the E. K. Warren Foundation.
The human remains belong to an individual of unknown age and sex. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Michigan State University have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on biological evidence and lab records.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan [previously listed as Huron Potawatomi, Inc.]; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; and the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation [previously listed as
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Consulted and Notified Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Consulted and Notified Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Judith Stoddart, Associate Provost for University Collections and Arts Initiatives, Michigan State University, 466 W Circle Drive, East Lansing, MI 48824-1044, telephone (517) 432-2524, email
Michigan State University is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Notified Tribes and Groups that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Ohio History Connection has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Ohio History Connection. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Ohio History Connection at the address in this notice by August 5, 2021.
Nekole Alligood, NAGPRA Specialist, Ohio History Connection, 800 East 17th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43211, telephone (405) 933-7643, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Ohio History Connection, Columbus, OH. The human remains were removed from an unknown location in Northern Montana.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Ohio History Connection professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana.
On or before January 14, 1921, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location in Northern Montana by Dr. L.D. Frescoln of Philadelphia. On January 20, 1921, Dr. Frescoln donated the human remains to the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society (now known as the Ohio History Connection). The human remains belong to an individual of unknown age and sex. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Museum documentation and correspondence from Dr. Frescoln to Professor Mills, Curator of the Museum of Archaeology at the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society at the time, identify the human remains as those of an individual from the “Piegan Tribe of Blackfeet, obtained from a tree burial in Northern Montana.”
Officials of the Ohio History Connection have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Nekole Alligood, NAGPRA Specialist, Ohio History Connection, 800 East 17th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43211, telephone (405) 933-7643, email
The Ohio History Connection is responsible for notifying the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Illinois State Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects,
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Illinois State Museum at the address in this notice by August 5, 2021.
Dr. Brooke M. Morgan, Curator of Anthropology, Illinois State Museum, 1011 East Ash Street, Springfield, IL 62703, telephone (217) 785-8930, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Illinois State Museum, Springfield, IL. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Zimmerman archeological site in LaSalle County, IL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Illinois State Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.
In 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from the Zimmerman site (11LS13) in LaSalle County, IL, during archeological excavation by Dr. Margaret K. Brown on behalf of the LaSalle County Historical Society, Utica, IL. All five individuals were found in a single burial pit identified as Feature 13. One individual was buried in an extended position and the others were buried in a bundle. The extended burial (Burial 23) was that of an infant. The bundle contained the remains of an adult male 25-35 years old (Burial 24), two infants both around two years of age (Burials 25A and 25B), and the partial skeleton of an adult female (Burial 26). Based on skeletal traits and archeological context, these five individuals have been determined to be Native American. The human remains were housed at the LaSalle County Historical Society following Dr. Brown's excavations. As early as the 1990s, they were thought to be lost; in 2010, the collection was rediscovered. In 2011, the human remains and associated funerary objects were transferred to the Illinois State Museum. No known individuals were identified. The eight associated funerary objects are seven blue glass beads and one cut deer mandible that were found in association with Burials 25A and/or 25B.
The Zimmerman site, also known as the Grand Village of the Kaskaskia and Grand Village of the Illinois State Historic Site, is a multicomponent pre- and post-contact village site located on the north bank of the Illinois River opposite Starved Rock State Park. French Jesuit missionary Jacques Marquette and explorer Louis Jolliet encountered the Grand Village on their 1673 voyage up the Illinois River and documented it in their journals. The Grand Village of the Kaskaskia served as a large permanent summer residence for the Kaskaskia, Peoria, Cahokia, and other members of the Illinois Confederation during the 17th century. European trade goods indicate the individuals from Feature 13 represent post-contact burials of the Illinois Confederation. The Illinois Confederation's present-day descendants are members of the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.
Officials of the Illinois State Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the eight objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Brooke M. Morgan, Curator of Anthropology, Illinois State Museum, 1011 East Ash St., Springfield, IL 62703, telephone (217) 785-8930, email
The Illinois State Museum is responsible for notifying the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Spurlock Museum, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Spurlock Museum at the address in this notice by August 5, 2021.
Krystiana Krupa, NAGPRA Program Officer, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 412 Swanlund Administration Building, 601 E John Street, MC-304, Champaign, IL 61822, telephone (217) 244-2587, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Spurlock Museum, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
On an unknown date, 664 cultural items were removed from the San Joaquin Valley in California. On July 17, 1926 they were donated to the Museum of Natural History at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign by Elmer J. Dawson of Lodi, CA. In 1998, they were transferred to the World Heritage Museum at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which was renamed the Spurlock Museum in 2000. The 664 unassociated funerary objects are both cut and natural shell beads and pendants. Most of the shell is unidentifiable except for a few beads of abalone (family Halioidae) and one marine mussel (family Mytilidae). Both shells are consistent with the types found at archeological sites near the California shore.
Museum records clearly indicate that the beads and pendants were taken from graves in the San Joaquin Valley. No extant Museum records associate the beads and pendants with human remains. The Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California provided the museum with maps and written ethnographic, archeological, linguistic, and geographical information about the Yokuts and their inter-relationships with surrounding communities in the territory where the unassociated funerary objects were discovered including the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California and the Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California.
Officials of the Spurlock Museum, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 664 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; and the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Krystiana Krupa, NAGPRA Program Officer, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 412 Swanlund Administration Building, 601 E John Street, MC-304, Champaign, IL 61822, telephone (217) 244-2587, email
The Spurlock Museum, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of ADT LLC and The ADT Security Corporation on June 30, 2021. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3555”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on November 2, 2020 (85 FR 69359) and determined on February 5, 2021 that it would conduct expedited reviews (86 FR 29594, June 2, 2021).
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on June 30, 2021. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5210 (June 2021), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 6, 2021, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of CAB Enterprises, Inc. of Houston, Texas and Sueros y Bebidas Rehidratantes, S.A. de C.V. of Mexico. Supplements were filed on May 12, 2021, May 24, 2021, and May 25, 2021. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electrolyte containing beverages and labeling and packaging thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,222,726 (“the '726 mark”); U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,833,885 (“the '885 mark”); U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,717,350 (“the '350 mark”); and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,717,232 (“the '232 mark”) (collectively, “Asserted Trademarks”). The complaint, as supplemented, further alleges that an industry in the United States exists and is in the process of being established, as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(C) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of the Asserted Trademarks, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “electrolyte beverages and associated packaging and labels that bear the Electrolit® Asserted Trademarks”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Commission notes that issues regarding whether the domestic industry requirement of section 337 is met may be present here. In instituting this investigation, the Commission has not made any determination as to whether complainants have satisfied this requirement. The presiding Administrative Law Judge may wish to consider this issue at an early date,
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainants of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. on June 30, 2021. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain light-based physiological measurement devices and components thereof. The complainant names as a respondent: Apple Inc. of Cupertino. CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue an exclusion order, a cease and desist order, and impose a bond upon respondent alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until August 5, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Mail Stop 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until August 5, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required please contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Partial Consent Decree in
This proposed Partial Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Paul Bunn, pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319, to obtain injunctive relief and impose civil penalties against Mr. Bunn for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Partial Consent Decree resolves these allegations by requiring Mr. Bunn to restore the impacted areas and to pay a civil penalty.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Partial Consent Decree for
The proposed Partial Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the District of Montana, Russell Smith Federal Courthouse, 201 East Broadway, Missoula, MT 59802. In addition, the proposed Partial Consent Decree may be examined electronically at
1 p.m. Tuesday, July 13, 2021.
U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC.
Open.
1. Briefing on status of military transfer.
2. Discussion on modifying Rules and Procedures at § 2.207.
3. Original Jurisdiction regulation.
4. Possible revision of 28 CFR 2.77.
5. Possible revision of 28 CFR 2.28.
6. Witness testimony by videoconference.
7. Possible revision of 28 CFR 2.34.
Jacqueline Graham, Staff Assistant to the Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 346-7010.
2 p.m., Tuesday, July 13, 2021.
U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC.
Closed.
Determination on one original jurisdiction case.
Jacquelyn Graham, Staff Assistant to the Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 346-7001.
Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Department of Labor (DOL).
Notice.
This notice announces a meeting of the State All Payer Claims Databases Advisory Committee (hereinafter the Committee). This notice provides information to members of the public who may be interested in attending the meetings or providing written comments related to the work of the Committee. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The Committee meeting will be held virtually on July 26, 2021. Key dates associated with this meeting, including the deadline for registration are discussed in the
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar link and log-in information will be available at DOL's Committee website:
Elizabeth Schumacher, Designated Federal Officer, EBSA, DOL, by sending an email to
The Committee is mandated by section 735 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 as added by section 115(b) of the No Surprises Act, enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, div. BB, tit. I, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020). The Committee is governed by the provisions of the FACA, as amended, 5 U.S.C. app.2.
The Committee will advise the Secretary of Labor on the standardized reporting format for the voluntary reporting by group health plans to State All Payer Claims Databases. Reporting will include medical claims, pharmacy claims, dental claims, and eligibility and provider files collected from private and public payers. The Committee will also advise the Secretary on what guidance is necessary to provide to States on the process by which States may collect such data in the standardized reporting format.
The Committee will be responsible for issuing a report that includes recommendations on the establishment of the format and guidance to the Secretary of Labor and certain congressional committees no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.
The Committee will meet on July 26, 2021 via webinar. The meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at approximately 5:00 p.m.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The meeting will focus on the various issues related to all payer claims databases and recommendations for the report that must be submitted by the Committee. Additional details about the agenda items and topics, as well as agenda updates, will be available on the
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance request for comment to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request helps to ensure that: Requested data can be provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines.
All comments must be received on or before September 7, 2021.
You may submit comment as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
•
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission.
•
• MSHA will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
Jessica Senk, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners. Further, section 101(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 811, authorizes the Secretary of Labor to develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other mines.
Each underground coal mine has an emergency response plan (ERP) and refuge alternatives (RA) that protect miners when escape from a mine during a mine emergency is not possible by providing secure spaces with isolated atmospheres that create life-sustaining environments.
Title 30 CFR 75.1506 requires mine operators to provide RAs.
Section 75.1507 requires the development and implementation of ERP. It requires that the ERP provide detailed information about the RAs used in the mine. This information assists miners, supervisors, emergency responders, and MSHA in ensuring that all essential preparations are made and required materials are readily available and in working order. A mine operator may notify the District Manager and update the existing ERP if there is a need to locate an RA in a different location than the one identified in the ERP for that mine (as required by section 75.1506(c)(2)).
Section 75.1508 requires the mine operator to certify that persons assigned to examine, maintain, and repair RAs and components are trained for those tasks. Training certifications assist MSHA in determining that persons received the required training. The training certification for persons assigned to examine RAs is integrated into existing requirements for preshift examinations of the mine under section 75.360 (OMB 1219-0088). The training certification for persons assigned to maintain and repair RAs is included in this package under section 75.1508(a).
Section 75.1508(b) requires a record of any maintenance and repair performed on an RA. This record assists MSHA in identifying design flaws or other weaknesses in the RA or its components that could adversely impact the safety of miners.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Refuge Alternatives for Underground Coal Mines. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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,
Background documents related to this information collection request are available at
This information collection request concerns provisions for Refuge
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice; correction.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration published a notice in the
Jessica D. Senk, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
In FR Doc. 2021-13544, appearing on page 33773 in the
1. On page 33773, in the second column, the “
2. On page 33775, in the second column, the “
3. On page 33777, in the second column, the “
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance request for comment to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request helps to ensure that: Requested data can be provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Roof Control Plan for Underground Coal Mines.
All comments must be received on or before September 7, 2021.
You may submit comment as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
•
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission.
•
• MSHA will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
Jessica Senk, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners. Further, section 101(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 811, authorizes the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other mines.
Section 302(a) of the Mine Act requires that a roof control plan and revisions thereof suitable to the roof conditions and mining system of each coal mine be first approved by the Secretary before implementation by the operator. The plan must show the type of support and spacing approved by the Secretary, and the plan must be reviewed at least every 6 months by the Secretary.
This information collection addresses the recordkeeping associated with:
75.215 Longwall mining systems;
75.220(a)(1)—Roof control plan;
75.221(1)(2)—Roof control plan information;
75.222(a)—Roof control plan-approval criteria; and
75.223(a), (b), and (d)—Evaluation and revision of roof control plan.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Roof Control Plan for Underground Coal Mines. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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,
Background documents related to this information collection request are available at
This information collection request concerns provisions for Roof Control Plan for Underground Coal Mines. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request from the previous information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), Department of Labor (DOL).
Notice of virtual open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the ACVETEO. The ACVETEO will discuss the DOL core programs and services that assist veterans seeking employment and raise employer awareness as to the advantages of hiring veterans. There will be an opportunity for individuals or organizations to address the committee. Any individual or organization that wishes to do so should contact Mr. Gregory Green at
Thursday, July 29, 2021 beginning at 9:00 a.m. and ending at approximately 12:00 p.m.(EDT).
This ACVETEO meeting will be held via TEAMS and teleconference. Meeting information will be posted at the link below under the Meeting Updates tab.
Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (
Mr. Gregory Green, Designated Federal Official for the ACVETEO,
The ACVETEO is a Congressionally mandated advisory committee authorized under Title 38, U.S. Code, Section 4110 and subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended. The ACVETEO is responsible for: Assessing employment and training needs of veterans; determining the extent to which the programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Labor meet these needs; assisting to conduct outreach to employers seeking to hire veterans; making recommendations to the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training Service, with respect to outreach activities and employment and training needs of veterans; and carrying out such other activities necessary to make required reports and recommendations. The ACVETEO meets at least quarterly.
The National Science Board's Committee on Awards & Facilities hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business as follows:
Friday, July 9, 2021, from 12-1 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National Science Foundation.
Open.
The agenda of the teleconference is: Committee Chair's Opening Remarks; Update on the National Science Foundation's Antarctic research infrastructure; and Committee Chair's Closing Remarks.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Chris Blair,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Indirect transfer of licenses; order.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an Order approving the application dated November 19, 2020, as supplemented by letter dated April 13, 2021, filed by NorthStar Nuclear Decommissioning Company, LLC (NNDC) and ADP CR3, LLC (ADP CR3), on behalf of themselves, NorthStar Vermont Yankee, LLC (NVY), and their corporate parents related to NorthStar Group Services, Inc (NorthStar). The application sought NRC consent to the indirect transfer of (1) NNDC's licensed authority under, and NVY's licensed ownership of, Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28 for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee) and the general license for the Vermont Yankee independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI); and (2) ADP CR3's licensed authority under Facility Operating License No. DPR-72 for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR3) and the general license for the CR3 ISFSI. Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF) will remain the licensed owner of CR3, and the application does not involve any direct or indirect transfer of DEF's license or responsibilities. No physical changes to the Vermont Yankee or CR3 facilities or operational changes were proposed in the application. The application requested NRC consent to these indirect transfers in order to complete an internal reorganization with new intermediary holding companies that would acquire control of NorthStar.
The order was issued on June 28, 2021, and is effective for 1 year.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0057 for Vermont Yankee and Docket ID NRC-2021-0061 for CR3 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:
•
•
•
Marlayna Vaaler Doell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3178; email:
The text of the Order is attached.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In the Matter of: NorthStar Nuclear Decommissioning Company, LLC, NorthStar Vermont Yankee, LLC, ADP CR3, LLC, and Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
NorthStar Nuclear Decommissioning Company, LLC (NNDC) is the licensed operator and NorthStar Vermont Yankee, LLC (NVY) is the licensed owner of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28 for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee), as well as the general license for the Vermont Yankee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), to possess, maintain, and decommission
ADP CR3, LLC (ADP CR3) is the licensed operator of Facility Operating License No. DPR-72 for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR3), as well as the general license for the CR3 ISFSI, to possess, maintain, and decommission CR3 and the CR3 ISFSI. Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF) is the licensed owner of CR3. CR3 is located in Citrus County, Florida.
By application dated November 19, 2020 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML20324A058), as supplemented by letter dated April 13, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21103A415), NNDC and ADP CR3, on behalf of themselves, NVY, and their corporate parents related to NorthStar Group Services, Inc. (NorthStar) (collectively, the Applicants), requested, pursuant to Title 10 of the
Notices entitled “Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License” and “Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License,” were published in the
Under 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50, no license for a production or utilization facility or ISFSI, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license to any person, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application, and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff has determined that the Applicants can indirectly transfer their licenses via the intermediary holding company structure proposed in the application. The proposed transferees are qualified to have indirect control over the holders of the licenses and the indirect transfer of the licenses is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law,
The findings set forth above are supported by an NRC staff safety evaluation dated the same date as this Order, which is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML21159A042.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50,
This Order is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the indirect license transfer application dated November 19, 2020, the supplemental information dated April 13, 2021, and the NRC staff safety evaluation dated the same date as this Order, which are publicly available electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; notice of opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing procedures.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of two amendment requests. The amendment requests are for Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1. For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that they involve no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). Because each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) and safeguards information (SGI), an order imposes procedures to obtain access to SUNSI and SGI for contention preparation by persons who file a hearing request or petition for leave to intervene.
Comments must be filed by August 5, 2021. A request for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by September 7, 2021. Any potential party as defined in section 2.4 of title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-2242, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0118, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves NSHC, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI and SGI.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve NSHC. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown as follows.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by any of these actions may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to that action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions that the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one that, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of NSHC, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of NSHC. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves NSHC, the
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a petition is submitted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as discussed below, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing sensitive unclassified information (including SUNSI and SGI). Requirements for access to SGI are primarily set forth in 10 CFR parts 2 and 73. Nothing in this Order is intended to conflict with the SGI regulations.
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI or SGI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI or SGI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI or SGI submitted later than 10 days after publication will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI, SGI, or both to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Deputy General Counsel for Hearings and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1);
(3) If the request is for SUNSI, the identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention; and
(4) If the request is for SGI, the identity of each individual who would have access to SGI if the request is granted, including the identity of any expert, consultant, or assistant who will aid the requestor in evaluating the SGI. In addition, the request must contain the following information:
(a) A statement that explains each individual's “need to know” the SGI, as required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1). Consistent with the definition of “need to know” as stated
(i) Specifically why the requestor believes that the information is necessary to enable the requestor to proffer and/or adjudicate a specific contention in this proceeding;
(ii) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the requested SGI to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention. The technical competence of a potential party or its counsel may be shown by reliance on a qualified expert, consultant, or assistant who satisfies these criteria.
(b) A completed Form SF-85, “Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions,” for each individual who would have access to SGI. The completed Form SF-85 will be used by the Office of Administration to conduct the background check required for access to SGI, as required by 10 CFR part 2, subpart C, and 10 CFR 73.22(b)(2), to determine the requestor's trustworthiness and reliability. For security reasons, Form SF-85 can only be submitted electronically through the Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) website, a secure website that is owned and operated by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). To obtain online access to the form, the requestor should contact the NRC's Office of Administration at 301-415-3710.
(c) A completed Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), signed in original ink, and submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 73.57(d). Copies of Form FD-258 will be provided in the background check request package supplied by the Office of Administration for each individual for whom a background check is being requested. The fingerprint card will be used to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR part 2, subpart C, 10 CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which mandates that all persons with access to SGI must be fingerprinted for a Federal Bureau of Investigation identification and criminal history records check.
(d) A check or money order payable in the amount of $326.00
(e) If the requestor or any individual(s) who will have access to SGI believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals that are exempt from the criminal history records check and background check requirements in 10 CFR 73.59, the requestor should also provide a statement identifying which exemption the requestor is invoking and explaining the requestor's basis for believing that the exemption applies. While processing the request, the Office of Administration, Personnel Security Branch, will make a final determination whether the claimed exemption applies. Alternatively, the requestor may contact the Office of Administration for an evaluation of their exemption status prior to submitting their request. Persons who are exempt from the background check are not required to complete the SF-85 or Form FD-258; however, all other requirements for access to SGI, including the need to know, are still applicable.
These documents and materials should
D. To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, the requestor should review all submitted materials for completeness and accuracy (including legibility) before submitting them to the NRC. The NRC will return incomplete packages to the sender without processing.
E. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraphs C.(3) or C.(4) above, as applicable, the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI or need to know the SGI requested.
F. For requests for access to SUNSI, if the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both E.(1) and E.(2), the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to SUNSI.
G. For requests for access to SGI, if the NRC staff determines that the requestor has satisfied both E.(1) and E.(2), the Office of Administration will then determine, based upon completion of the background check, whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and reliable, as required for access to SGI by 10 CFR 73.22(b). If the Office of Administration determines that the individual or individuals are trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will promptly notify the requestor in writing. The notification will provide the names of approved individuals as well as the conditions under which the SGI will be provided. Those conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
H. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior to providing SGI to the requestor, the NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an inspection to confirm that the recipient's information protection system is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. Alternatively, recipients may opt to view SGI at an approved SGI storage location rather than establish their own SGI protection program to meet SGI protection requirements.
I. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that
J. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI or SGI is denied by the NRC staff either after a determination on standing and requisite need, or after a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) Before the Office of Administration makes a final adverse determination regarding the trustworthiness and reliability of the proposed recipient(s) for access to SGI, the Office of Administration, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.336(f)(1)(iii), must provide the proposed recipient(s) any records that were considered in the trustworthiness and reliability determination, including those required to be provided under 10 CFR 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed recipient(s) have an opportunity to correct or explain the record.
(3) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect to standing or need to know for SGI by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
(4) The requestor may challenge the Office of Administration's final adverse determination with respect to trustworthiness and reliability for access to SGI by filing a request for review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.336(f)(1)(iv).
(5) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
K. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
L. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI or SGI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act, this notice announces that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of an expiring information collection. Standard Form 1153, Claim for Unpaid Compensation for Deceased Civilian Employee, is used to collect information from individuals who have been designated as beneficiaries of the unpaid compensation of a deceased Federal employee who believe that their relationship to the deceased entitles them to receive the unpaid compensation of the deceased Federal employee. OPM needs this information in order to adjudicate the claim and properly assign a deceased Federal employee's unpaid compensation to the appropriate individual(s).
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 7, 2021. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Merit System Accountability and Compliance, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Damon Ford or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Compensation and Leave Claims Program, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Damon Ford or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
MSAC adjudicates classification appeals, job-grading appeals, FLSA Claims, compensation and leave Claims, and declination of reasonable offer appeals, as well as the settling of disputed Claims for unpaid compensation due deceased Federal employees. This adjudicative function provides Federal employees administrative due process rights to challenge compensation and related agency decisions without having to seek redress in Federal courts. These decisions are also a critical resource for agency HR offices in making their own classification, pay, and FLSA determinations.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges (“Fee Schedule”) to modify the per share credit and fee associated with certain Retail Orders that add and remove liquidity. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective June 14, 2021.
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to modify the per share credit and fee associated with certain Retail Orders
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered a “fragmented” market structure where trading in a single stock can occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized that “such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in that stock.”
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues to which a firm routes order flow. The competition for Retail Orders is even more stark, particularly as it relates to exchange versus off-exchange venues.
The Exchange thus needs to compete in the first instance with non-exchange venues for Retail Order flow, and with the 15 other exchange venues for that Retail Order flow that is not directed off-exchange. Accordingly, competitive forces compel the Exchange to use exchange transaction fees and credits, particularly as they relate to competing for Retail Order flow, because market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
To respond to this competitive environment, the Exchange has established Retail Order Step-Up tiers,
In response to this competitive environment, the Exchange proposes to modify the per share credit and fee associated with the execution of orders that are internalized.
Under the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 1 pricing tier, such orders currently receive a credit of $0.0038 per share for adding liquidity and do not pay a fee for removing liquidity. Under the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 2 pricing tier, such orders currently receive a credit of $0.0035 per share for adding liquidity and do not pay a fee for removing liquidity. Lastly, under the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3 pricing tier, such orders currently receive a credit of $0.0036 per share for adding liquidity and do not pay a fee for removing liquidity. When both sides of an execution are not Retail Orders or do not share the same MPID, the Exchange will continue to not charge a fee for removing liquidity and will provide the credits noted above. The proposed rule change would not impact orders that qualify for the Retail Order pricing tier that are internalized. Such orders would continue to receive a credit of $0.0033 per share for providing liquidity and would pay a basic rate fee of $0.0030 per share for removing liquidity.
The following example illustrates how the proposed rule change would operate. Assume an ETP holder qualifies for the Retail Order Step-Up Tier 3 pricing tier. As such, the ETP Holder would receive a credit of $0.0036 per share for Retail Orders that add liquidity and would pay no fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity. Further assume that the ETP holder has an ADV of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity of 500,000 shares, of which
• 250,000 shares ADV where both sides of the executed orders share the same MPID and are both Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day. Both sides of such orders would not pay a fee or receive a credit.
• 100,000 shares ADV where both sides of the executed orders share the same MPID but are not both Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day (
• The remaining 150,000 shares ADV are where both sides of the executed orders do not share the same MPID. The retail removing shares would continue to not pay a fee for removing liquidity and the non-retail providing shares would continue to receive the tiered or basic rates that are applicable based on the ETP holder's qualifying levels.
If instead, the ETP Holder in the example above has an ADV under 150,000 shares then the ETP Holder would not be subject to the proposed fee change.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. With respect to Retail Orders, ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently operating registered exchanges, and numerous off-exchange venues, to route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces reasonably constrain exchange transaction fees that relate to Retail Orders on an exchange. Stated otherwise, changes to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt to attract additional Retail Orders and retain existing Retail Order flow on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to adopt lower credits for Retail Orders that are internalized is reasonable because while ETP Holders would no longer receive credits for such orders, they would also continue to not pay any fees for such orders. Further, as noted below, the Exchange believes that not providing a credit and not charging a fee for Retail Orders that are internalized is reasonable because, despite the lower credit, the resulting pricing would remain favorable compared to the fees charged for orders that are internalized by another market,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is also reasonable as it is designed to incentivize ETP Holders to send orders to the Exchange that may otherwise be internalized off-exchange, which further contributes to a deeper, more liquid market and provide even more execution opportunities for market participants. This overall increase in activity deepens the Exchange's liquidity pool, offers additional cost savings, supports the quality of price discovery, promotes market transparency and improves market quality, for all investors.
On the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the Exchange currently operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt to increase liquidity on the Exchange and improve the Exchange's market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange believes its proposal is an equitable allocation of its fees among its market participants because all ETP Holders that participate on the Exchange will be able to internalize their Retail Orders on the Exchange at no cost,
Further, given the competitive market for attracting Retail Order flow, the Exchange notes that with this proposed rule change, the cost for executing Retail Orders that are internalized would be lower than the fees charged by other exchanges that the Exchange competes with for order flow. For example, EDGX Equities (“EDGX”) charges its members an internalization fee of $0.00050 per share for orders that add liquidity and a fee of $0.00050 per share for orders that remove liquidity if such members do not have an adding ADV of 10,000,000 shares.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed change is equitable because it is reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher volume in Retail Orders. The Exchange believes that recalibrating the fees and credits charged for execution of Retail Orders that are internalized will continue to attract order flow and liquidity to the Exchange, thereby contributing to price discovery on the Exchange and benefiting investors generally.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable because maintaining or increasing the proportion of Retail Orders in exchange-listed securities that are executed on a registered national securities exchange (rather than relying on certain available off-exchange execution methods) would contribute to investors' confidence in the fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor protection.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply to all ETP Holders on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory because maintaining or increasing the proportion of Retail Orders in exchange-listed securities that are executed on a registered national securities exchange (rather than relying on certain available off-exchange execution methods) would contribute to investors' confidence in the fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor protection. This aspect of the proposed rule change also is consistent with the Act because all similarly situated ETP Holders would be charged the same fee for executing Retail Orders that are internalized. The Exchange also notes that proposed rule change will not adversely impact any ETP Holder's ability to qualify for other reduced fee or enhanced rebate tiers. Lastly, the submission of Retail Orders is optional for ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit Retail Orders and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard. The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including those that currently offer similar order types and comparable transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
86 FR 34080, June 28, 2021.
Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 2 p.m.
The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 2 p.m., has been cancelled.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), and 18(i) of the 1940 Act, pursuant to section 6(c) and 23(c) of the 1940 Act for certain exemptions from rule 23c-3 under the 1940 Act, and for an order pursuant to
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple classes of common shares of beneficial interest (“Shares”) with varying sales loads and asset-based service and/or distribution fees and to impose early withdrawal charges.
BNY Mellon Alcentra Opportunistic Global Credit Income Fund (the “Initial Fund”) and BNY Mellon Investment Adviser, Inc. (“Adviser”).
The application was filed on April 1, 2021.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
The Commission:
Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6817, or Kaitlin C. Bottock, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained by searching the Commission's website, at
1. The Initial Fund is a newly organized Maryland statutory trust that is registered under the 1940 Act as a closed-end management investment company and classified as a non-diversified investment company. The Initial Fund's investment objective is to seek to provide total return consisting of high current income and capital appreciation.
2. The Adviser, a New York corporation, is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Adviser serves as investment adviser to the Initial Fund.
3. The applicants seek an order to permit the Initial Fund to offer investors multiple classes of Shares with varying sales loads and asset-based service and/or distribution fees and to impose early withdrawal charges.
4. Applicants request that the order also apply to any other registered closed-end management investment company that conducts a continuous offering of its shares, existing now or in the future, for which the Adviser, its successors,
5. The Initial Fund's initial Registration Statement filed on Form N-2 seeks to register an initial class of Shares (the “Initial Class Shares”). Shares will be offered on a continuous basis pursuant to a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933 at their net asset value per share. The Initial Fund, as a closed-end management investment company, does not intend to continuously redeem Shares as does an open-end management investment company. Shares of the Initial Fund will not be listed on any securities exchange and will not trade on an over-the-counter system. Applicants do not expect that any secondary market will ever develop for the Shares.
6. If the requested relief is granted, the Initial Fund intends to offer multiple classes of Shares, such as the Initial Class Shares and a new Share class (the “New Class Shares”), or any other classes. Because of the different distribution fees, shareholder services fees, and any other class expenses that may be attributable to the different classes, the net income attributable to, and any dividends payable on, each class of Shares may differ from each other from time to time.
7. Applicants state that, from time to time, the Board of a Fund may create and offer additional classes of Shares, or may vary the characteristics described of the Initial Class and New Class Shares, including without limitation, in the following respects: (1) The amount of fees permitted by a distribution and service plan as to such class; (2) voting rights with respect to a distribution and service plan as to such class; (3) different class designations; (4) the impact of any class expenses directly attributable to a particular class of Shares allocated on a class basis as described in the application; (5) differences in any dividends and net asset values per Share resulting from differences in fees under a distribution and service plan or in class expenses; (6) any early withdrawal charge or other sales load structure; and (7) any exchange or conversion features, as permitted under the 1940 Act.
8. Applicants state that, in order to provide some liquidity to shareholders, the Initial Fund is structured as an “interval fund” and conducts quarterly offers to repurchase between five percent and twenty-five percent of its outstanding Shares at net asset value, pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the 1940 Act, unless such offer is suspended or postponed in accordance with regulatory requirements. Any other Fund that intends to rely on the requested relief will provide periodic liquidity to shareholders in accordance with either rule 23c-3 under the 1940 Act or rule 13e-4 under the 1934 Act.
9. Applicants represent that any asset-based distribution and servicing fee of a Fund will comply with the provisions of Rule 2341 of the Rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA Rule 2341”).
10. Each Fund and its distributor (the “Distributor”) will also comply with any requirements that may be adopted by the Commission or FINRA regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue sharing arrangements as if those requirements apply to the Fund and the Distributor. Each Fund or the Distributor will contractually require that any other distributor of the Fund's Shares comply with such requirements in connection with the distribution of Shares of the Fund.
11. All expenses incurred by a Fund will be allocated among its various classes of Shares based on the net assets of the Fund attributable to each class, except that the net asset value and expenses of each class will reflect the expenses associated with the distribution and service plan of that class (if any), shareholder services fees attributable to a particular class (including transfer agency fees, if any), and any other incremental expenses of that class. Expenses of a Fund allocated to a particular class of the Fund's Shares will be borne on a pro rata basis by each outstanding Share of that class. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 under the 1940 Act as if it were an open-end management investment company.
12. Applicants state that the Initial Fund does not intend to offer any exchange privilege or conversion feature, but any such privilege or feature introduced in the future by a Fund will comply with rule 11a-1, rule 11a-3, and rule 18f-3 as if the Fund were an open-end management investment company.
13. Applicants seek relief to the extent necessary for each Fund to impose an early withdrawal charge on shares submitted for repurchase that have been held less than a specified period. Applicants state that each Fund may grant waivers of the early withdrawal charges on repurchases for certain categories of shareholders or transactions established from time to time. Applicants state that each Fund will apply the early withdrawal charge (and any waivers or scheduled variations of the early withdrawal charge) uniformly to all shareholders in a given class and consistently with the requirements of rule 22d-1 under the 1940 Act as if the Fund were an open-end management investment company.
14. Applicants state that a Fund operating as an interval fund pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the 1940 Act may offer its shareholders an exchange feature under which the shareholders of the Fund may, in connection with the Fund's periodic repurchase offers, exchange their Shares of the Fund for shares of the same class of (i) registered open-end management investment companies or (ii) other registered closed-end investment companies that comply with rule 23c-3 under the 1940 Act and continuously offer their shares at net asset value, that are in the Fund's group of investment companies (collectively, the “Other Funds”). Shares of a Fund operating pursuant to rule 23c-3 that are exchanged for shares of Other Funds will be included as part of the repurchase offer amount for such Fund as specified in rule 23c-3 under the 1940 Act. Any exchange option will comply with rule 11a-3 under the 1940 Act, as if the Fund were an open-end management investment company subject to rule 11a-3. In complying with rule 11a-3 under the 1940 Act, each Fund will treat an early withdrawal charge as if it were a contingent deferred sales load (a “CDSL”).
15. Applicants state that the Initial Fund does not currently, nor does it currently intend to, impose a repurchase fee, but may do so in the future. If a Fund charges a repurchase fee, Shares of the Fund will be subject to a repurchase fee at a rate of no greater than two percent of the shareholder's repurchase proceeds if the interval between the date of purchase of the Shares and the valuation date with respect to the repurchase of those Shares is less than one year.
1. Section 18(a)(2)(A) and (B) makes it unlawful for a registered closed-end management investment company to issue a senior security that is a stock unless (a) immediately after such issuance it will have an asset coverage of at least 200% and (b) provision is made to prohibit the declaration of any distribution upon its common stock, or the purchase of any such common stock, unless in every such case such senior security has at the time of the declaration of any such distribution, or at the time of any such purchase, an asset coverage of at least 200% after deducting the amount of such distribution or purchase price, as the case may be. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of Shares of the Funds may violate section 18(a)(2) because the Funds may not meet section 18(a)(2)'s requirements with respect to a class of Shares that may be a senior security.
2. Section 18(c) of the 1940 Act provides, in relevant part, that a registered closed-end management investment company may not issue or sell any senior security which is a stock if immediately thereafter the company will have outstanding more than one class of senior security that is a stock. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of Shares of a Fund may be prohibited by section 18(c), as a class may have priority over another class as to payment of dividends because shareholders of different classes would pay different fees and expenses.
3. Section 18(i) of the 1940 Act generally provides that each share of stock issued by a registered management
4. Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of the 1940 Act, or from any rule or regulation under the 1940 Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), and 18(i) to permit the Funds to issue multiple classes of Shares.
5. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses relating to distribution and voting rights is equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would permit each Fund to facilitate the distribution of its Shares and provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder options. Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end management investment company multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section 18 of the 1940 Act to any greater degree than open-end management investment companies' multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the 1940 Act. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end management investment company.
1. Section 23(c) of the 1940 Act provides, in relevant part, that no registered closed-end management investment company shall purchase securities of which it is the issuer, except: (a) On a securities exchange or other open market; (b) pursuant to tenders, after reasonable opportunity to submit tenders given to all holders of securities of the class to be purchased; or (c) under other circumstances as the Commission may permit by rules and regulations or orders for the protection of investors.
2. Rule 23c-3 under the 1940 Act permits an interval fund to make repurchase offers of between five and twenty-five percent of its outstanding shares at net asset value at periodic intervals pursuant to a fundamental policy of the interval fund. Rule 23c-3(b)(1) under the 1940 Act permits an interval fund to deduct from repurchase proceeds only a repurchase fee, not to exceed two percent of the proceeds, that is paid to the interval fund and is reasonably intended to compensate the fund for expenses directly related to the repurchase.
3. Section 23(c)(3) of the 1940 Act provides that the Commission may issue an order that would permit a closed-end management investment company to repurchase its shares in circumstances in which the repurchase is made in a manner or on a basis that does not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class or classes of securities to be purchased.
4. Applicants request relief under section 6(c), discussed above, and section 23(c)(3) from rule 23c-3 to the extent necessary for each Fund to impose early withdrawal charges on shares of the Fund submitted for repurchase that have been held for less than a specified period.
5. Applicants state that the early withdrawal charges they
1. Section 17(d) of the 1940 Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or other joint arrangement in which the investment company participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the 1940 Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
2. Rule 17d-3 under the 1940 Act provides an exemption from section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end management investment companies to enter into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act. Applicants request an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the 1940 Act and rule 17d-1 thereunder to the extent necessary to permit each Fund to impose asset-based service and/or distribution fees (in a manner similar to rule 12b-1 fees for an open-end management investment company). Applicants have agreed to comply with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules apply to closed-end management investment companies, which they believe will resolve any concerns that might arise in connection with a Fund financing the distribution of its Shares through asset-based service and/or distribution fees.
For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the exemptions requested under section 6(c) are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and are consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act. Applicants further submit that the relief requested pursuant to section 23(c)(3) will be consistent with the protection of investors and will insure that applicants do not unfairly discriminate against any holders of the class of securities to be purchased. Finally, applicants state that the Funds' imposition of asset-based service and/or distribution fees is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the 1940 Act and does not involve participation on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Each Fund relying on the requested order will comply with the provisions of rules 6c-10, 12b-1, 17d-3, 18f-3, 22d-1 and, where applicable, 11a-3 under the 1940 Act, as amended from time to time or replaced, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with FINRA Rule 2341, as amended from time to time, as if that rule applies to all closed-end management investment companies.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation ATS sets forth a regulatory regime for “alternative trading systems” (“ATSs”), which are entities that carry out exchange functions but are not required to register as national securities exchanges under the Act. In lieu of exchange registration, an ATS can instead opt to register with the Commission as a broker-dealer and, as a condition to not having to register as an exchange, must instead comply with Regulation ATS. Rule 303 of Regulation ATS (17 CFR 242.303) describes the record preservation requirements for ATSs. Rule 303 also describes how such records must be maintained, what entities may perform this function, and how long records must be preserved.
Under Rule 303, ATSs are required to preserve all records made pursuant to Rule 302, which includes information relating to subscribers, trading summaries, and time-sequenced order information. Rule 303 also requires ATSs to preserve any notices provided to subscribers, including, but not limited to, notices regarding the ATSs operations and subscriber access. For an ATS subject to the fair access requirements described in Rule 301(b)(5)(ii) of Regulation ATS, Rule 303 further requires the ATS to preserve at least one copy of its standards for access to trading, all documents relevant to the ATS's decision to grant, deny, or limit access to any person, and all other documents made or received by the ATS in the course of complying with Rule 301(b)(5) of Regulation ATS. For an ATS subject to the capacity, integrity, and security requirements for automated systems under Rule 301(b)(6) of Regulation ATS, Rule 303 requires an ATS to preserve all documents made or received by the ATS related to its compliance, including all correspondence, memoranda, papers, books, notices, accounts, reports, test scripts, test results, and other similar records. Rule 303(a)(1)(v) of Regulation ATS requires every ATS to preserve the written safeguards and written procedures mandated under Rule 301(b)(10). As provided in Rule 303(a)(1), ATSs are required to keep all of these records, as applicable, for a period of at least three years, the first two in an easily accessible place. In addition, Rule 303 requires ATSs to preserve records of partnership articles, articles of incorporation or charter, minute books, stock certificate books, copies of reports filed pursuant to Rule 301(b)(2) and Rule 304, and records made pursuant to Rule 301(b)(5) for the life of the ATS. ATSs that trade both NMS Stock and securities other than NMS Stock are required to file, and also preserve under Rule 303, both Form ATS and related amendments and Form ATS-N and related amendments.
The information contained in the records required to be preserved by Rule 303 will be used by examiners and other representatives of the Commission, state securities regulatory authorities, and the self-regulatory organizations to ensure that ATSs are in compliance with Regulation ATS as well as other applicable rules and regulations. Without the data required by the Rule, regulators would be limited in their ability to comply with their statutory obligations, provide for the protection of investors, and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. Respondents consist of ATSs that choose to register as broker-dealers and comply with the requirements of Regulation ATS.
There are currently 94 respondents. The Commission believes that the average ongoing hourly burden for a respondent to comply with the baseline record preservation requirements under Rule 303 is approximately 15 hours per year. We thus estimate that the average aggregate ongoing burden to comply with the baseline Rule 303 record preservation requirements is approximately 1,410 hours per year (94 ATSs × 15 hours = 1,410 hours). In addition, there are currently two ATSs that transact in both NMS stock and non-NMS stock on their ATSs. These two ATSs have a slightly greater burden because they have to keep both Form ATS and Form ATS-N and related documents (
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
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.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
2 p.m. on Thursday, July 8, 2021.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of FLORIDA dated 06/29/2021.
Issued on 06/29/2021.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17005 U and for economic injury is 17006 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Florida.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested member of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before August 5, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain a copy of the information collection and supporting documents from the Agency Clearance Office at
As authorized by the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, and the new Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has been providing COVID-19
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The U.S. Trade Representative is modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) to divide certain U.S. tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) currently allocated to the European Union (EU), between the EU and the United Kingdom (UK).
The changes made by this notice are applicable as of January 1, 2022.
Roger A. Wentzel, Office of Agricultural Affairs, at 202-395-5124, or
On October 17, 2019, the UK and EU agreed to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and the European Atomic Energy Community (Withdrawal Agreement). As part of the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK and EU agreed to a transition period, which ended on December 31, 2020.
For 2021, the U.S. Trade Representative determined that the UK would continue to be eligible to export under U.S. TRQs allocated to the EU under Additional U.S. Notes 6, 16 to 23, and 25 to Chapter 4 and Additional U.S. Note 5(a) to Chapter 24 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Beginning in 2022, the U.S. Trade Representative has decided to divide the TRQs allocated to the EU under Additional U.S. Notes 6 and 16 to 18 to Chapter 4 and Additional U.S. Note 5(a) to Chapter 24 of the HTSUS between the EU and the UK according to the average percentage of in-quota imports for the 2013-2015 period and has determined that the UK will have access to a specific in-quota quantity under these notes. The UK otherwise will be eligible to export under U.S. TRQs for Additional U.S. Notes 19 to 23 and 25 to Chapter 4 under the quantities allocated to `other countries or areas.'
Further, to recognize the departure of the UK from the EU, as well as the 2013 accession of Croatia to the EU, the U.S. Trade Representative has modified the definition of the `EU 27' as set out in Note 2 to Chapter 4 to exclude the UK and to include Croatia. The U.S. Trade Representative also has modified the countries listed in the parenthetical definition as part of the European Community in Note 5(a) of Chapter 24 to exclude the UK and listed the UK as a separate country in this note.
Section 404(d)(3) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (19 U.S.C. 3601(d)(3)) authorizes the President to allocate the in-quota quantity of a TRQ for any agricultural product among supplying countries or customs areas and to modify any allocation as determined appropriate by the President. Section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2483), authorizes the President to embody in the HTSUS the substance of the relevant provisions of that Act, and of other acts affecting import treatment, and actions thereunder, including the removal, modification, continuance, or imposition of any rate of duty or other import restriction.
In paragraph (3) of Proclamation 6763 of December 23, 1994, the President delegated this authority under section 404(d)(3) of the URAA to the U.S. Trade Representative. In paragraph (2) of Proclamation 6914 of August 26, 1996, the President determined that it is appropriate to authorize the U.S. Trade Representative to exercise the authority under section 604 of the Trade Act to embody in the HTSUS the substance of any action taken by the USTR under section 404(d)(3) of the URAA.
Effective with respect to articles entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2022:
1. Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 4 of the HTSUS is modified by: (a) Inserting “Croatia,” into the list of countries in alphabetical order; and (b) deleting “the Slovak Republic, Sweden or the United Kingdom” and inserting “the Slovak Republic or Sweden” in lieu thereof.
2. Additional U.S. Note 16 to Chapter 4 of the HTSUS is modified by: (a) Inserting “United Kingdom” into the list of countries in alphabetical order; (b) inserting a quota quantity of “2,213,374” in the Quantity (kg) column for the United Kingdom; (c) deleting the quantity “27,846,224” in the Quantity (kg) column for the EU27; and (d)
3. Additional U.S. Note 17 to Chapter 4 of the HTSUS is modified by: (a) Inserting “United Kingdom” into the list of countries in alphabetical order; (b) inserting a quota quantity of “23,617” in the Quantity (kg) column for the United Kingdom; (c) deleting the quantity “2,829,000” in the Quantity (kg) column for the EU27; and (d) inserting “2,805,383” in the Quantity (kg) column for the EU27 in lieu thereof.
4. Additional U.S. Note 18 to Chapter 4 of the HTSUS is modified by: (a) Inserting “United Kingdom” into the list of countries in alphabetical order; (b) inserting a quota quantity of “895,948” in the Quantity (kg) column for the United Kingdom; (c) deleting the quantity “1,313,000” in the Quantity (kg) column for the EU27; and (d) inserting “417,052” in the Quantity (kg) column for the EU27 in lieu thereof.
5. Additional U.S. Note 5(a) to Chapter 24 of the HTSUS is modified by: (a) Deleting “Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom” and inserting “Spain, and Sweden” in lieu thereof; (b) inserting “United Kingdom” in the list of countries in alphabetical order; (c) inserting a quota quantity of “44” in the Quantity (metric tons) column for the United Kingdom; (d) deleting the quantity “10,000” in the Quantity (metric tons) column for the EU27; and (e) inserting the quantity “9,956” in the Quantity (metric tons) column for the EU27 in lieu thereof.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture annually publishes in the
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before August 5, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Rhonda Davis, 202-366-6379, Office of Sealift Support, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-343, Washington, DC 20590.
By Order of the Acting Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before August 5, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Gerard Wall, Maritime Administration, at
By Order of the Acting Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before August 5, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Daniel Ladd, 202-366-1859, Office of Financial Approvals, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590.
By Order of the Acting Maritime Administrator.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Interim final rule; request for comments.
This interim final rule amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to include implementing regulations for the preferential tariff treatment and related customs provisions of the Agreement Between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA). The USMCA applies to goods from Canada and Mexico entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after July 1, 2020. This document amends the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to implement the provisions in Chapters 1, 2, 5, and 7 of the USMCA related to general definitions, confidentiality, import requirements, export requirements, post-importation duty refund claims, drawback and duty-deferral programs, general verifications and determinations of origin, commercial samples, goods re-entered after repair or alteration in Canada or Mexico, and penalties. This document makes amendments to apply the marking rules in determining the country of origin for marking purposes for goods imported from Canada or Mexico and for other purposes specified by the USMCA. This document also includes amendments to add the sugar-containing products subject to a tariff-rate quota under Appendix 2 to Annex 2-B of Chapter 2 of the USMCA to the CBP regulations governing the requirement for an export certificate, and conforming amendments for the declaration required for goods re-entered after repair or alteration in Canada or Mexico, recordkeeping provisions, and the modernized drawback provisions. Concurrently with this interim final rule, CBP is publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposes to apply the rules for all non-preferential origin determinations made by CBP for goods imported from Canada or Mexico. CBP will also issue additional USMCA implementing regulations in an interim final rule to be published in the
You may submit comments, identified by
• Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this interim final rule. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this interim final rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the interim final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information or authority that support such recommended change.
On November 30, 2018, the “Protocol Replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement with the Agreement Between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada” (the Protocol) was signed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Agreement Between the United States of America, the United Mexican States (Mexico), and Canada (the USMCA)
Pursuant to section 106 of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. 4205) and section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2191), the United States adopted the USMCA through the enactment of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act (USMCA Act), Public Law 116-113, 134 Stat. 11 (19 U.S.C. Chapter 29), on January 29, 2020. Section 103(a)(1)(B) of the USMCA Act (19 U.S.C. 4513(b)(1)) provides the authority for new or amended regulations to be issued to implement the USMCA, as of the date of its entry into force.
Mexico, Canada, and the United States certified their preparedness to implement the USMCA on December 12, 2019, March 13, 2020, and April 24, 2020, respectively. As a result, pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Protocol, which provides that the USMCA will take effect on the first day of the third month after the last signatory party provides written notification of the completion of the domestic implementation of the USMCA through the enactment of
Subsequent to the USMCA's entry into force date, on December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Appropriations Act), Public Law 116-260, was enacted with Title VI of the Act containing technical corrections to the USMCA Act. All of the changes contained within Title VI of the Appropriations Act are retroactively effective on July 1, 2020, which is the entry into force date of the USMCA. These changes include amending section 202 of the USMCA Act (19 U.S.C. 4531) to prohibit non-originating goods used in production processes within foreign trade zones (FTZs) from qualifying as originating goods under the USMCA.
Pursuant to Article 5.16 of the USMCA, the United States, Mexico, and Canada trilaterally negotiated and agreed to Uniform Regulations. The USMCA Free Trade Commission adopted the Uniform Regulations in its Decision No.1, effective as of the date of entry into force of the USMCA. Annex I to that decision includes:
• The Uniform Regulations Regarding the Interpretation, Application, and Administration of Chapter 4 (Rules of Origin) and Related Provisions in Chapter 6 (Textile and Apparel Goods) (Uniform Regulations regarding rules of origin), and
• The Uniform Regulations Regarding the Interpretation, Application, and Administration of Chapters 5 (Origin Procedures), 6 (Textile and Apparel Goods), and 7 (Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation) of the Agreement Between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (Uniform Regulations regarding origin procedures).
In accordance with USMCA Article 5.16, modifications or additions to the Uniform Regulations shall be considered regularly to reduce their complexity and to ensure better compliance. To this end, further iterations of the Uniform Regulations may be negotiated. Part 182 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)(19 CFR part 182) will be amended through rulemaking to reflect future changes to the Uniform Regulations, as needed.
The USMCA superseded NAFTA and its related provisions on the USMCA's entry into force date.
Claims for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA may be made as of July 1, 2020. On July 1, 2020, CBP published an interim final rule (IFR), entitled “Implementation of the Agreement Between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA) Uniform Regulations Regarding Rules of Origin,” in the
The USMCA is composed of 34 chapters along with additional side letters. CBP is responsible for administering the customs related provisions contained within Chapters 1 (Initial Provisions and General Definitions), 2 (National Treatment and Market Access for Goods), 4 (Rules of Origin), 5 (Origin Procedures), 6 (Textile and Apparel Goods) and 7 (Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation) of the USMCA and the Uniform Regulations regarding rules of origin as well as the Uniform Regulations regarding origin procedures, pursuant to Article 5.16 of the USMCA.
This IFR amends the CBP regulations to implement significant portions of the USMCA, but does not contain all relevant subparts. CBP will promulgate the remaining USMCA implementing regulations and solicit public comments at a later date. Additionally, future trilateral negotiations on the Uniform Regulations may result in additional provisions that must be included in the rulemaking process at a later date. CBP will address any comments received in a final rule published in the
Chapter 1 of the USMCA contains the general definitions and country-specific definitions applicable to the USMCA, unless otherwise provided.
Chapter 2 of the USMCA sets forth the national treatment and market access provisions. Unless otherwise provided, each USMCA country shall apply a customs duty on an originating good in accordance with its Schedule to Annex 2-B (Tariff Commitments) of Chapter 2 of the USMCA.
Chapter 5 of the USMCA sets forth the origin procedures. Specifically, Chapter 5 of the USMCA contains the rules for making a claim for preferential tariff treatment (Article 5.2); the requirements for a certification of origin (Article 5.2); the set of minimum data elements required for a certification of origin (Annex 5-A); the basis of the certification of origin (Article 5.3); the
The penalties provisions for the USMCA are described in Chapters 5 and 7. Article 5.13 provides that each USMCA country shall maintain criminal, civil, or administrative penalties for violations of its laws and regulations related to Chapter 5 (
The Chapters 1, 2, 5, and 7 provisions discussed above are reflected in this IFR.
Chapter 4 of the USMCA contains the general rules of origin for preferential tariff treatment provisions, and Chapter 6 includes the rules of origin specific to textiles and apparel goods. CBP has already incorporated these rules of origin into the CBP regulations. On July 1, 2020, CBP published an IFR in the
Any additional CBP regulations needed to implement USMCA provisions will be included in a subsequent rulemaking to be published in the
Chapter 5 of the USMCA and the Uniform Regulations regarding origin procedures govern the verification and determination of origin requirements and procedures. Pursuant to Article 5.9.1 of Chapter 5 of the USMCA, a USMCA country, through its customs administration, may conduct a verification to determine whether a good qualifies for USMCA preferential tariff treatment by one or more of the following means: A written request or questionnaire seeking information, including documents, from the importer, exporter, or producer; a verification visit to the premises of the exporter or producer in order to request information, including documents, and to observe the production process and the related facilities; for a textile or apparel good, the procedures set out in USMCA Article 6.6; or any other procedure as may be decided by the USMCA countries. For textile or apparel goods, the verification procedures set out in USMCA Article 6.6 provide an alternative verification means that a USMCA country has the discretion to utilize only when conducting a textile or apparel goods verification. The USMCA Article 6.6 site visit verification requirements and procedures will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking to be published in the
A USMCA country may choose to initiate a verification, using any of these verification means, with the importer or with the person who completed the certification of origin.
USMCA Article 5.9 and the Uniform Regulations regarding origin procedures set forth the information that must be contained in a written request for information, questionnaire, or request for a verification visit (
Pursuant to USMCA Article 5.9.9, when a USMCA country initiates a verification through a verification visit request, the USMCA country is required to provide a copy of the verification visit request to the customs administration of the USMCA country in whose territory the visit is to occur, and, if requested by the USMCA country in whose territory the visit is to occur, the embassy of that USMCA country in the territory of the USMCA country proposing to conduct the visit. USMCA Article 5.9 contains additional provisions governing verification visit procedures, including providing the circumstances under which the exporter or producer whose premises are to be visited during the verification visit, or the customs administration of the USMCA country in whose territory the verification visit is to occur, may postpone the verification visit.
During a verification, there are also requirements that records be made available for inspection. USMCA Article 5.8 requires that importers, exporters, and producers maintain certain documentation and records. Pursuant to the Uniform Regulations regarding origin procedures, these records must be maintained in such a manner as to enable an officer of the USMCA
The Uniform Regulations regarding origin procedures also clarify that, where a USMCA country's customs administration is conducting a verification of a good under USMCA Article 5.9, the customs administration may conduct an origin verification of a material that is used in the production of that good. The verification of that material is expected to be conducted in accordance with certain USMCA procedures. The Uniform Regulations regarding origin procedures enumerate the specific USMCA articles and Uniform Regulations regarding origin procedures paragraphs that apply to the verification of materials.
After the verification is conducted, the USMCA country must provide the importer, and the exporter or producer that completed the certification of origin and is the subject of the verification, with a written determination of origin that includes the findings of facts and the legal basis for the determination.
Section 207(a)(1)(A) of the USMCA Act (19 U.S.C. 4533(a)(1)(A)) provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to conduct a verification, pursuant to USMCA Article 5.9, of whether a good is an originating good under section 202 of the USMCA Act (19 U.S.C. 4531) or section 202A of the USMCA Act (19 U.S.C. 4532). Section 207(b) of the USMCA Act (19 U.S.C. 4533(b)(1)) sets forth the basis for a negative determination of origin that applies to verifications conducted under USMCA Chapter 5. Specifically, section 207(b) of the USMCA Act provides that a negative determination is a determination by the Secretary that a claim by the importer, exporter, or producer that the good qualifies as an originating good under 19 U.S.C. 4531 is inaccurate; that the good does not qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA because the importer, exporter, or producer failed to respond to a request for information or failed to provide sufficient information to determine that the good qualifies as an originating good; after receipt of a notification of a verification visit, the exporter or producer did not provide written consent for the visit; the importer, exporter, or producer does not maintain, or denies access to, records or documentation required under section 508(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1508(1)); or the importer, exporter, or producer otherwise fails to comply with the requirements of section 207 of the USMCA Act or, based on the preponderance of the evidence, circumvents the requirements of section 207 of the USMCA Act. Section 207(c)(1) of the USMCA Act (19 U.S.C. 4533(c)(1)) provides that, upon making a negative determination, the Secretary may deny preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA with respect to the good while section 207(c)(2) of the USMCA Act (19 U.S.C. 4533(c)(2)) allows the Secretary to withhold preferential tariff treatment for identical goods based on a pattern of conduct.
To address these general USMCA verification and determination of origin requirements and procedures, CBP has included subpart G,
Section 304(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or container) will permit in such manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article. The regulations issued under the authority of section 304 to implement the country of origin marking requirements are set forth in 19 CFR part 134. Part 134 identifies the articles subject to marking, the methods and manner of marking that should be used, the exceptions to the marking requirements, the marking requirements for containers or holders, and the procedures for articles found not legally marked.
CBP employs two primary methods for determining the country of origin for marking purposes when imported goods are processed in, or contain materials from, more than one country. One method uses case-by-case adjudication to determine whether the goods have been substantially transformed in a particular country. The other method consists of codified rules, also used to determine whether the goods have been substantially transformed, primarily expressed through a change in the HTSUS classification, often referred to as a “tariff shift.”
Part 134 sets forth the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions. Section 134.1(b) defines
The USMCA does not contain a general marking requirement. Except for certain agricultural goods, a good does not need to first qualify to be marked as a good of Mexico or Canada in order to receive preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA. For most goods, only the general Uniform Regulations regarding rules of origin set forth in Appendix A of part 182 of title 19 of the CFR and the product-specific rules of origin contained in General Note 11, HTSUS, are needed to determine whether a good is an originating good under the USMCA to receive preferential tariff treatment. Therefore, in line with the present scope of the part 102 rules, the part 102 rules will continue to be applicable to determine country of origin for marking purposes for goods imported from Canada or Mexico under the USMCA (regardless of whether preferential tariff treatment is claimed).
The Secretary of the Treasury has general rulemaking authority, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1304 and 1624, to make such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of section 304(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, related to the country of origin marking requirements for imported articles of foreign origin. CBP believes that extending application of the well-established part 102 rules to USMCA goods will provide continuity for the Canadian and Mexican importing community because those rules have been applied to all imports from Canada and Mexico since 1994. As a result of this longevity, the importing community has made extensive efforts to comply with the part 102 rules and CBP has significant experience in applying those rules to goods from Canada and Mexico. These factors provide predictability and consistency in the application of the marking rules and in CBP's administration of the rules. The codified part 102 rules are a simplified and standardized approach for determining the country of origin for marking purposes (regardless of whether preferential tariff treatment is claimed).
The importing communities from Canada and Mexico are used to applying the part 102 rules as opposed to the case-by-case method. Accordingly, to make the transition from NAFTA to the USMCA as least disruptive to the importing community as possible, CBP has decided to continue application of the current part 102 rules to determine the country of origin for marking purposes of a good imported from Canada or Mexico to articles imported pursuant to the USMCA. However, the other marking requirements in 19 CFR part 134, such as the rules for marking containers, the exceptions applicable to the marking requirements, and the methods of marking, also previously applied to goods from Canada and Mexico, and continue to apply to these goods. Thus, CBP is amending parts 102 and 134 of title 19 of the CFR to continue the application of the part 102 rules for determining origin for marking purposes for Mexico and Canada, and also to reflect the continued applicability of the other marking requirements and the relevant exceptions.
Origin determinations are also required in other instances, such as in the administration of quantitative restrictions. Concurrently with this IFR, CBP is publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to apply the part 102 rules for non-preferential origin determinations made by CBP for goods imported from Canada or Mexico, including government procurement determinations.
Under NAFTA, an adverse marking decision is a decision by CBP which an exporter or producer of merchandise believes to be contrary to the provisions of Annex 311 of NAFTA. While Article 510 of NAFTA provides specific rights of review and appeal for marking determinations, the USMCA does not provide any such rights. Additionally, section 209 of the USMCA Act struck the language from subsection (k) of section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304(k)), that provided these specific petition rights, such as with respect to adverse marking decisions, for NAFTA exporters and producers. Thus, these specific rights and procedures are not provided for under the USMCA or the USMCA Act. Accordingly, an importer, or an exporter or producer (only when acting as the importer of record (IOR)) wishing to request review and/or appeal of CBP marking determinations must follow the procedures set forth in part 174 of the CFR.
Part 174 sets forth the general protest procedures pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1514, which allows for the administrative review of challenges to CBP determinations, including marking and other origin decisions. As the general statutory and regulatory authority for protests in 19 U.S.C. 1514 and 19 CFR part 174 and the specific USMCA authority under the USMCA and the USMCA Act do not provide exporters or
Tariff-rate quotas permit a specified quantity (“in-quota quantity”) of merchandise to be entered or withdrawn for consumption at a reduced duty rate (“in-quota tariff rate of duty”) during a specified period.
Paragraph 15 of Appendix 2 to Annex 2-B of the USMCA sets out the tariff-rate quota for sugar-containing products of Canada, including the aggregate quantity of originating goods of Canada permitted to enter free of duty in each calendar year and the article description of the qualifying originating goods. Pursuant to section 103(c)(4) of the USMCA Act, which authorizes the President to take necessary actions to implement the tariff-rate quotas in the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2-B of the USMCA, the special classification provisions in Chapter 98 of the HTSUS have been modified to include the sugar-containing products subject to this tariff-rate quota.
The tariff-rate quota for sugar-containing products of Canada under the USMCA will be administered using export certificates. When Canada provides the United States with the written notification of its intent to require export certificates for sugar-containing products in accordance with paragraph 15(d) of Appendix 2 of Annex 2-B of the USMCA, the USTR will publish a notice in the
Section 132.17 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 132.17) sets forth the form and manner determined by CBP to constitute a required declaration that a valid export certificate is in effect for the goods. Specifically, § 132.17 governs the requirement for an export certificate for sugar-containing products to qualify for the tariff-rate quota and provides a description of the sugar-containing products subject to these requirements, when the export certificate is valid, and the recordkeeping retention and production requirements. For the sugar-containing products described in § 132.17(a), the importer must possess a valid export certificate in order to claim the in-quota tariff rate of duty on the products at the time they are entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption. The importer must record the unique identifier of the export certificate for these products on the entry summary or warehouse withdrawal for consumption (Customs Form 7501, column 34), or its electronic equivalent. The Government of Canada will issue the export certificates. A certificate is valid if it meets the requirements of 15 CFR 2015.3(b). If the export certificate is valid, it will authorize entry into the United States at the in-quota tariff rate of duty established under the USMCA.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 4535(a), the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to implement the USMCA. Section 103(b)(1) of the USMCA Act (19 U.S.C. 4513(b)(1)) requires that initial regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out the actions required by or authorized under the USMCA Act or proposed in the Statement of Administrative Action approved under 19 U.S.C. 4511(a)(2) to implement the USMCA shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be prescribed within one year after the date on which the USMCA enters into force. This IFR amends the CBP regulations to implement significant portions of the USMCA. CBP will promulgate the remaining USMCA implementing regulations.
In order to provide transparency and facilitate their use, the majority of the USMCA implementing regulations are set forth in part 182 of title 19 of the CFR, entitled the
All of the regulatory amendments made in this document are consistent with the provisions of the USMCA, the Uniform Regulations regarding origin procedures, and the USMCA Act (19 U.S.C. Chapter 29).
Section 10.8 sets forth the documentation requirements for articles exported for repairs or alterations. As explained further in Section III.F.,
Part 102,
This document amends § 102.0 to extend the scope of part 102 to include the USMCA. Section 102.0 is revised to state that the rules set forth in §§ 102.1 through 102.18 and 102.20 also determine the country of origin for marking purposes for goods imported from a USMCA country. Under the USMCA, the Uniform Regulations regarding rules of origin set forth in Appendix A to part 182 and the product-specific rules of origin contained in General Note 11, HTSUS, are needed to determine whether a good originates under the USMCA to receive preferential tariff treatment. The USMCA includes,
Section 102.1 sets forth the general definitions applicable to this part. CBP is adding a new definition for “inventory management method” to provide clarity to the public. Currently, part 102 refers to the inventory management method merely with cross-references to part 181 without defining the term or providing a specific citation for where the method is described. As the term “inventory management method” is used for purposes of NAFTA and the USMCA, CBP believes that adding the definition in § 102.1 is necessary. Thus, the term “inventory management method” is added as paragraph (l) and is defined as “(1) averaging; (2) “last-in, first-out;” (3) “first-in, first-out;” or (4) any other method that is recognized in the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) of the country in which the production is performed or otherwise accepted by that country.” In order to add the term in alphabetical order, CBP is redesignating paragraphs (l) through (p) as paragraphs (m) through (q).
CBP is also revising the definition of “value.” The definition of “value” provides different methods for calculating the value of goods or materials for purposes of determining whether foreign material that does not undergo the applicable change in tariff classification (set out in § 102.20) or satisfies the other applicable requirements of that section is considered de minimis (set out in § 102.13). CBP is adding the clarifier “under NAFTA” to paragraphs (1) and (2) to make clear that the methods set forth in these paragraphs only apply to NAFTA. CBP is adding a new paragraph (3) to set forth the method used for calculating the value of goods or materials under the USMCA for purposes of determining whether foreign material is considered de minimis. Under the USMCA, the value of a good or material is its customs value or transaction value within the meaning of the Uniform Regulations regarding rules of origin set forth in Appendix A to part 182.
CBP is amending § 102.19 to limit the NAFTA preference override to apply to NAFTA only. Under NAFTA, to receive preferential tariff treatment, a good must be “originating” under General Note 12, HTSUS, and the good must qualify to be marked as a good of a NAFTA country under the part 102 rules in § 102.20. Under the USMCA, unlike NAFTA, a good does not need to qualify to be marked as a good of Canada or Mexico in order to receive preferential tariff treatment. Accordingly, the NAFTA preference override provisions are no longer necessary under the USMCA. Thus, CBP is adding a new paragraph (c) to § 102.19 to state that the NAFTA preference override in paragraphs (a) and (b) applies only to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, prior to July 1, 2020, which is the date that the USMCA entered into force.
As a result of adding the definition of “inventory management method” to § 102.1, CBP needs to make several conforming amendments to other sections of part 102. Accordingly, CBP is removing the phrase “provided under the appendix to part 181 of this chapter” from § 102.11(b)(2) and “provided under the appendix to part 181 of the Customs Regulations” from § 102.12(b). These cross-references to the inventory management methods in the appendix to part 181 are no longer needed because the definition of “inventory management method” is now contained in the general definitions of part 102.
Part 132,
Part 134,
Section 134.1 contains the definitions for part 134. CBP is adding the USMCA to several definitions to clarify that, for those purposes, a good may be from either a NAFTA or USMCA country. In the “country of origin” definition in § 134.1(b), CBP is adding language to clarify that for a good of a NAFTA or USMCA country, the rules set forth in part 102 determine the country of origin for marking purposes. The definition of the “NAFTA Marking Rules” in paragraph (j) has been replaced with a new definition for the “Part 102 Rules,” which are rules promulgated for purposes of determining whether a good is a good of a NAFTA country and to determine the country of origin for
For the definition of “ultimate purchaser” in § 134.1(d), CBP is adding “or USMCA” to note that, instead of the general definition of “ultimate purchaser,” the USMCA will use the same definition of “ultimate purchaser” as applied to a good of a NAFTA country. For a good of a NAFTA or USMCA country, the “ultimate purchaser” is the last person in the United States who purchases the good in the form in which it was imported. The words “or USMCA” have also been added to the examples and the term “part 102 Rules” has replaced the term “NAFTA Marking Rules,” in the examples of an “ultimate purchaser,” as appropriate.
CBP is further amending § 134.1(g) to add the USMCA to the definition of a “good of a NAFTA country” and to replace references to the “NAFTA Marking Rules” with “part 102 Rules.” The paragraph heading of paragraph (g) has been revised to read “good of a NAFTA or USMCA country” and “or USMCA” has been added to the definition to define a “good of a NAFTA or USMCA country” for marking purposes, as an article for which the country of origin is Canada, Mexico, or the United States as determined under the part 102 Rules. Paragraph (i) defining a “NAFTA country” has similarly been revised. The paragraph heading of paragraph (i) has been revised to read “NAFTA or USMCA country” and the appropriate cross-reference to the definition of “territory” in the USMCA has been added. Accordingly, a “NAFTA or USMCA country” is defined as the territory of the United States, Canada, or Mexico, as defined in Annex 201.1 of the NAFTA and Chapter 1, Section C of the USMCA.
Finally, § 134.1 has added a new paragraph (l) to include a definition of “USMCA” and has revised the definition of “NAFTA” in paragraph (h). The new paragraph (l) defines “USMCA” as the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA), entered into force by the United States, Canada and Mexico on July 1, 2020. CBP has also added a second sentence to the definition of “NAFTA” stating that NAFTA is not applicable to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after July 1, 2020 to clarify in part 134 that the USMCA superseded NAFTA when it entered into force.
Subpart C of part 134 addresses the marking requirements and exceptions under 19 U.S.C. 1304(b) for containers and holders. CBP is amending §§ 134.22, 134.23 and 134.24, which provide the general rules for marking of containers or holders, the rules for containers or holders designed for or capable of reuse, and the rules for containers or holders not designed for or capable of reuse, to add the necessary USMCA references. Specifically, CBP is adding “or USMCA” to §§ 134.22(b), (d)(2), and (e)(1) to indicate that a good of a USMCA country which is a usual container is treated the same as a good of a NAFTA country. No marking is required for any good of a NAFTA or USMCA country that is a usual container.
CBP is amending § 134.23(a) to note that the exception for goods of a NAFTA country which are usual containers also applies to the USMCA with the addition of the words “or USMCA.” CBP is also revising §§ 134.24(c)(1), (c)(2), and (d)(1) by adding “or USMCA” to clarify that disposable containers or holders are treated the same under the USMCA as under NAFTA.
In section 209 of the USMCA Act, Congress amended section 304(k) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C 1304(k)), to create the same exceptions to the marking requirements for the goods of a USMCA country as under NAFTA. Section 134.32 contains the general exceptions to the marking requirements. CBP is adding “or USMCA” to paragraphs (h), (p) and (q) of § 134.32 to indicate that the exceptions to the marking requirements apply to NAFTA and the USMCA. These general exceptions to the marking requirements are: to articles of a USMCA country for which the ultimate purchaser must reasonably know the country of origin by reason of the circumstances of their importation or by reason of the character of the articles even though they are not marked to indicate their origin; to goods of a USMCA country which are original works of art; and to goods of a USMCA country which are provided for in subheading 6904.10 or heading 8541 or 8542 of the HTSUS.
CBP is also adding “or USMCA” to multiple other provisions in part 134 to indicate that goods of a USMCA country are subject to the same treatment and marking requirements as goods of a NAFTA country. Specifically, CBP is revising §§ 134.35(a) and (b), 134.43(a), (c)(3), (d)(3), and 134.45(a)(2) to include the USMCA. These sections address articles substantially changed by manufacture, methods of marking specific articles, and approved markings of country name, respectively. Additionally, CBP is revising § 134.35(b) to replace a reference to the “NAFTA Marking Rules” with “part 102 Rules.”
Part 163,
CBP is amending the scope provision in § 163.0, redesignating § 163.2(c)(2) to (c)(3), and adding a new § 163.2(c)(2) to include the USMCA exporters or producers. It is not necessary to amend § 163.2 to include the USMCA importers because § 163.2 includes all importers without qualification. CBP will make any additional amendments to part 163 necessary to implement the USMCA and to incorporate modifications to the Uniform Regulations in a subsequent rulemaking to be published in the
Part 182,
This document amends part 182 to add the general definitions and confidentiality provisions to Subpart A (General Provisions), and to add the implementing regulations for Subparts B (Import Requirements), C (Export Requirements), D (Post-Importation Duty Refund Claims), E (Restrictions on Drawback and Duty-Deferral Programs), G (Origin Verifications and Determinations), J (Commercial Samples and Goods Returned after Repair or Alteration), and K (Penalties). The implementing regulations for the remaining part 182 subparts will be included in a subsequent rulemaking to be published in the
Section 182.1 sets forth the general definitions applicable to this part. Chapter 1 of the USMCA sets forth the general and country-specific definitions to be applied throughout the USMCA, unless otherwise noted. Since § 182.1 contains the definitions of the common terms that are used in multiple places in part 182, it includes definitions from 19 U.S.C. 4502, several Chapters of the USMCA, and the Uniform Regulations regarding rules of origin set forth in Appendix A to part 182. Additional definitions that are not common terms throughout part 182 and are applicable on a more limited basis are set forth elsewhere with the substantive provisions to which they relate. For instance, Appendix A to part 182 contains many definitions that are applicable only to the Uniform Regulations regarding rules of origin.
To ensure protection of confidential information provided to a USMCA country's customs administration and to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of this information to third parties and to other USMCA countries, the USMCA contains confidentiality protections. These confidentiality provisions are set forth in USMCA Articles 5.12, 7.22, 7.26, and 7.28. The USMCA also extends the confidentiality provisions in Articles 5.12 and 7.22 to textile and apparel goods under USMCA Chapter 6.
Article 5.12 generally governs the treatment of confidential information exchanged by USMCA countries. A USMCA country that receives information designated as confidential from another USMCA country or that is deemed confidential under the receiving USMCA country's laws is required to maintain the confidentiality of this information pursuant to its respective laws. The receiving USMCA country may use or disclose the confidential information, however, for purposes of administration or enforcement of its customs laws or as otherwise provided for under its law, including in an administrative, quasi-judicial, or judicial proceeding.
USMCA Article 7.22 governs the protection of information, related to members of the trade community (traders), received by the USMCA country's customs administration. It requires that each USMCA country's customs administration apply measures governing the collection, protection, use, disclosure, retention, correction, and disposal of information that it collects from traders.
Several U.S. statutes and regulations govern CBP's treatment and disclosure of confidential information. The exchange of information between USMCA countries is governed by 19 U.S.C. 1628. Section 209(c) of the USMCA Act amended section 628 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1628) by striking subsection (c) and inserting language applicable to the USMCA in accordance with USMCA Articles 5.12, 7.26, and 7.28. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1628(c), the Secretary may authorize CBP to exchange information with any government agency of a USMCA country if the Secretary reasonably believes the exchange of information is necessary to implement USMCA chapters 2, 4, 5, 6, or 7, and obtains assurances from such agency that the information will be held in confidence and used only for governmental purposes.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable information (PII) in systems of records maintained by Federal agencies. PII is defined as information that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any other information that is linked or linkable to that individual, regardless of whether the individual is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, visitor to the United States, or employee or contractor of the Department of Homeland Security.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) provides that any person has the right to request access to records from any federal agency. Under FOIA's terms, federal agencies must disclose records upon receiving a written request for them, except for those records or portions of records protected from disclosure by any of the nine exemptions or three exclusions found in the statute.
Part 5 of title 6 of the CFR (6 CFR part 5) governs the disclosure of information created or maintained by CBP and requested pursuant to the FOIA and Privacy Act. Part 103 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR part 103) governs the production and disclosure of CBP-maintained information under other statutory or regulatory provisions and/or as requested through administrative and/or legal processes. Accordingly, part 5 of title 6 and part 103 of title 19
The Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905) bars the unauthorized disclosure by government officials of any information received in the course of their employment or official duties when such information “concerns or relates to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association.”
The Trade Secrets Act permits those covered by the Act to disclose protected information when the disclosure is otherwise “authorized by law,” which includes both statutes expressly authorizing disclosure and properly promulgated substantive agency regulations authorizing disclosure based on a valid statutory interpretation.
Thus, CBP is adding a new § 182.2 to address CBP's responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of the USMCA-related information it receives from the public in accordance with existing statutory and regulatory requirements, including 19 CFR part 103, 6 CFR part 5, and all other applicable statutes and regulations, the legally permitted disclosures of this information that CBP is authorized to make to third parties and other USMCA countries, and the information sharing that is permissible with U.S. government authorities, including the Department of Labor with respect to the USMCA's labor value content requirements.
Section 182.2 fulfills CBP's commitment under USMCA Article 7.22 to apply measures governing the protection, use, and disclosure of information collected from traders. Section 182.2 is focused on USMCA-related disclosures of information collected from members of the trade community (traders). As discussed in more detail in Section III.F.,
In order to ensure compliance with the applicable U.S. statutory and regulatory provisions, CBP is also extending the confidentiality regulations in § 182.2 to any of the notifications made during a verification that potentially involve information disclosures to third parties. These include CBP's notification of the initiation of a verification to the importer (§ 182.73(c)), sending a request for information to the exporter or producer prior to issuing a negative determination (§ 182.75(c)(1)), the issuance of a positive or negative determination of origin (§ 182.75), and the issuance of the intent to deny (§ 182.75(c)(3)). Section 182.2(b) also authorizes CBP to disclose confidential information collected from traders to U.S. government authorities responsible for the administration and enforcement of USMCA requirements, such as the information in the labor value content vehicle certifications to the Department of Labor. The provision that allows the importer, exporter, or producer to send information directly to CBP to protect its proprietary information is set forth in § 182.72(c).
While § 182.2 is intended to address only USMCA-specific information collections and disclosures, CBP will continue to treat all confidential information received from the public, such as routine entry information, in accordance with existing statutory and regulatory requirements, including the routine uses of the systems of record notices (SORNs) for the trade systems maintained by CBP. As discussed above, the exchange of information between USMCA countries is governed by statutory authority (19 U.S.C. 1628).
Subpart B of part 182 (19 CFR 182.11-182.16) contains the USMCA import requirement provisions, as provided for in Chapter 5 of the USMCA, including the filing of a claim for preferential tariff treatment upon importation (§ 182.11), certification of origin requirements (§ 182.12), importer obligations (§ 182.13), certification of origin not required (§ 182.14), maintenance of records (§ 182.15), effect of noncompliance, and failure to provide documentation regarding transshipment (§ 182.16).
Section 182.11,
Section 182.12,
Section 182.14,
Section 182.15,
Pursuant to § 182.16(a), if the importer fails to comply with applicable requirements under this subpart, including submission of a complete certification of origin prepared in accordance with §§ 182.12 and 182.14, when requested, CBP may deny preferential tariff treatment to imported goods. In addition, pursuant to § 182.16(b), CBP may deny preferential tariff treatment to an originating good if the good is transported outside the territories of the USMCA countries, and at the request of CBP, the importer of the good does not provide evidence demonstrating to the satisfaction of CBP that the transit and transshipment conditions of the USMCA were met.
Subpart C of part 182 (19 CFR 182.21) sets forth the obligations of an exporter or producer who completes a certification of origin for a good exported from the United States to Canada or Mexico. These export requirements are in accordance with Article 5.6 of the USMCA. These requirements include the submission of the certification of origin to CBP upon request, and a requirement to provide prompt notification of errors in the certification of origin that could affect its accuracy or validity to every person to whom the certification was provided, including CBP.
Paragraph (c) of § 182.21 sets forth the recordkeeping requirements, in accordance with Article 5.8.2 of the USMCA, that apply to an exporter or producer who completes a certification of origin or a producer who provides a written representation for a good exported from the United States to Canada or Mexico. These records must be maintained as provided for in 19 CFR 163.5 and must be stored and made available for examination and inspection by the appropriate CBP official in the same manner as provided in part 163. As discussed in Section III.E. Part 163 above, to impose these recordkeeping requirements on the USMCA exporters and producers, CBP had to make conforming amendments to 19 CFR 163.2(c).
Subpart D of part 182 (19 CFR 182.31-182.33) sets forth the provisions related to post-importation claims for preferential tariff treatment. Under 19 U.S.C. 1520(d), CBP may reliquidate an entry to refund any excess duties paid at importation on a good qualifying for preferential tariff treatment under the rules of origin for certain enumerated trade agreements for which a claim for preferential tariff treatment was not filed at importation (1520(d) claims). Notwithstanding the fact that a valid protest was not filed, and provided a claimant files the required documents as described in 19 CFR 182.32(b), this provision allows the claimant to receive refunds for any excess duties.
Section 182.31 sets forth the right to make this post-importation claim for preferential tariff treatment. Specifically, where a good would have qualified as an originating good when it was imported into the United States but no claim for preferential tariff treatment was made, the importer of that good may file a claim for a refund of any excess duties at any time within one year after the date of importation of the good in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 182.32. CBP may refund any excess duties by liquidation or reliquidation of the entry covering the good in accordance with § 182.33 of this subpart.
As described above, on December 27, 2020, the Appropriations Act was enacted with Title VI of the Act setting forth technical corrections to the USMCA Act. Prior to the enactment of the Appropriations Act and the technical corrections, section 205(a)(1)(C) of the USMCA Act only permitted an importer who made a claim for USMCA preferential tariff treatment upon importation pursuant to § 182.11(b) to qualify for an exemption from the merchandise processing fee while importers who filed a USMCA post-importation claim under 19 U.S.C. 1520(d) (1520(d) claim) were limited to the refund of any excess duties paid at importation and were specifically excluded from receiving the refund of any merchandise processing fees paid at importation. Section 601(e) of Title VI of the Appropriations Act amended 19 U.S.C. 1520(d) to allow the refund of merchandise processing fees for USMCA post-importation claims. This change is retroactively effective as of July 1, 2020, USMCA's entry into force date, and authorizes CBP to issue refunds of the merchandise processing fees for USMCA post-importation claims.
Subpart E of part 182 (19 CFR 182.41-182.54) sets forth the provisions regarding drawback claims and duty-deferral programs, as provided for under Article 2.5 of the USMCA, and applies to any good that is a “good subject to USMCA drawback” within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 4534. Drawback, as generally provided for in section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1313), is the refund or remission, in whole or in part, of duties, taxes, and fees imposed and paid under Federal law upon entry or importation.
The requirements and procedures set forth in subpart E for USMCA drawback are in addition to the general definitions, requirements, and procedures for drawback claims set forth in part 190 of title 19 of the CFR, unless otherwise specified. Further, the requirements and procedures of subpart E are also in addition to those for manipulation, manufacturing, and smelting and refining warehouses contained in parts 19 and 144, for foreign trade zones under part 146, and for temporary importations under bond in part 10.
Subpart E contains sections on applicability (§ 182.41), duties and fees not subject to drawback (§ 182.42), eligible goods subject to USMCA drawback (§ 182.43), calculation of drawback (§ 182.44)—which includes the lesser of duty rule for USMCA drawback at § 182.44(a), goods eligible for full drawback (§ 182.45), filing of drawback claim (§ 182.46), completion of claim for drawback (§ 182.47), retention of records (§ 182.49), liquidation and payment of drawback claims (§ 182.50), prevention of
In § 182.44(d),
The USMCA drawback provisions in § 182.45 include a few differences from NAFTA drawback. In § 182.45, CBP has made changes to paragraph (d),
The USMCA did not provide for the time or method of filing a USMCA drawback claim. Accordingly, CBP has made conforming changes to the procedures in § 182.46,
Subpart G of part 182 (19 CFR 182.71-182.76) contains the general USMCA verification and determination of origin provisions, including the applicability of these provisions (§ 182.71), verification of claim for preferential tariff treatment (§ 182.72), notification and response procedures (§ 182.73), verification visit procedures (§ 182.74), determinations of origin (§ 182.75), and repeated false or unsupported preference claims (§ 182.76).
Section 182.71,
Additional verification procedures that apply to textile and apparel goods and automotive goods will be set forth in Subpart H,
Section 182.72,
A verification of a claim for USMCA preferential tariff treatment may be conducted by means of one or more of the following: Requests for information, including documents, from the importer, exporter, or producer; questionnaires seeking information, including documents, from the importer, exporter, or producer; verification visits to the premises of the exporter or producer in Mexico or Canada in order to request information, including documents, and to observe production processes and facilities; and any other procedure to which the USMCA countries may agree.
As described in § 182.72(b), when conducting a verification of a good imported into the United States, CBP may conduct a verification of the material that is used in the production of that good. A verification of a material producer may be conducted pursuant to any of the verification means set forth in § 182.72(a). Please note that CBP believes that the term “material producer” and our application of the verification of materials in part 182 to be sufficiently broad to encompass a verification of either a material producer or a material supplier. CBP encourages public comment on this issue, including whether a material supplier should be separately accounted for in the regulations. In accordance with the Uniform Regulations regarding origin procedures,
Section 182.73,
Section 182.74,
Section 182.75,
USMCA Article 5.9.15 requires the USMCA country conducting the verification to, as expeditiously as possible and within 120 days after it has received all the information necessary (including any information collected pursuant to a verification request to an exporter or producer) to make the determination and provide the written determination to the appropriate parties. The Uniform Regulations regarding origin procedures further clarify that “all the information necessary” includes information that may be required regarding the materials used in the production of a good or any assistance requested under USMCA Article 5.9.8 during a verification from another USMCA country. Pursuant to USMCA Article 5.9.15, the USMCA country may extend this 120-day period, in exceptional cases, for up to 90 days after notifying the importer, and any exporter or producer who is subject the verification or provided information during the verification. CBP has decided to provide this notification of the extension to all parties to whom it will issue a determination of origin pursuant to 19 CFR 182.75(b), including to the exporter or producer who is subject to the verification and either completed the certification of origin or provided information directly to CBP during the verification.
Paragraph (c) of § 182.75 contains the provisions that apply to negative determinations of origin when CBP intends to deny USMCA preferential tariff treatment. This paragraph sets forth the circumstances under which CBP must send a request for information to the exporter or producer prior to issuing a negative determination in accordance with USMCA Article 5.9.4, the reasons that CBP may deny preferential tariff treatment, the intent to deny provision, and the additional requirements that apply when CBP issues a negative determination. Paragraph (c)(2) contains the reasons that CBP may deny USMCA preferential tariff treatment as set forth in USMCA Article 5.10.2. CBP will amend paragraph (c)(2) in a subsequent rulemaking to be published in the
As described above, pursuant to USMCA Article 5.9.16, prior to issuing a written determination of origin, if the USMCA country intends to deny USMCA preferential tariff treatment, the USMCA country must inform the importer, and any exporter or producer who is subject to the verification and provided information during the verification, of the preliminary results of the verification and provide those persons with a notice of intent to deny. Paragraph (c)(3) of § 182.75 contains the intent to deny provision, including that CBP will inform the importer, and the exporter or producer who is subject to the verification and either completed the certification of origin or provided information directly to CBP during the verification, of CBP's intent to deny preferential tariff treatment. As discussed above, CBP has decided to extend the parties who receive an intent to deny, beyond the requirements in USMCA Article 5.9.16, to ensure that the same parties receive the intent to deny and the determination of origin. The intent to deny will contain the preliminary results of the verification, the effective date of the denial of preferential tariff treatment, and a notice to the importer, exporter, or producer that CBP will provide 30 days to submit additional information, including documents, related to the preferential tariff treatment of the good. Pursuant to paragraph (c)(4), if, 30 days after the importer receives the intent to deny, CBP determines that one or more of the reasons for the denial of preferential tariff treatment continues to apply, CBP will issue a negative determination of origin. In addition to the contents of the determination set forth in § 182.75(a), a negative determination of origin will provide the exporter or producer with the information necessary to file a protest as provided for in 19 U.S.C. 1514(e) and part 174, unless CBP determines that there is a pattern of conduct of false or unsupported representations pursuant to § 182.76. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1514(e), CBP is authorized to provide exporters or producers who receive a negative determination of origin with the entry number and any other entry information considered necessary to allow the exporter or producer to exercise its protest rights under 19 U.S.C. 1514 and
Section 182.76,
As explained in more detail above in Section III.F.,
Subpart I of part 182 pertains to automotive goods. The regulations in subpart I, which are currently reserved as §§ 182.91-182.93, may be more expansive than previously anticipated. To allow for this possibility, the numbering structure of the regulations in subpart J has been modified, as explained below. The actual text of the subpart I regulations will be included in a subsequent rulemaking to be published in the
Subpart J (19 CFR 182.111-182.112) provides for the duty-free treatment of commercial samples of negligible value and goods re-entered after repair or alteration in Canada or Mexico. The regulations in subpart J, which were previously reserved as § 182.101 and § 182.102, are redesignated as § 182.111 and § 182.112 due to changes in the numbering structure of subpart I of part 182, discussed above.
Section 182.111 defines
Section 182.112 sets forth the rules that apply for purposes of obtaining duty-free treatment on goods returned after repair or alteration in Canada or Mexico. This section also contains the conditions under which these goods are not eligible for duty-free treatment and provides the documentation requirements. The documentary requirements set forth in § 10.8(a), (b), and (c) apply to goods claiming duty-free treatment under § 182.112. While CBP is aware that under ordinary circumstances § 10.8 applies to articles claimed to be subject to duty on the value of the repairs or alterations performed abroad, for purposes of the USMCA, the same documentation requirements in § 10.8(a), (b), and (c) apply in connection with the entry of goods returned after repairs or alterations from Canada or Mexico which are claimed to be duty-free under the USMCA.
Subpart K of part 182 (19 CFR 182.121-182.124) sets forth penalties provisions, including those related to general penalties under the USMCA (§ 182.121), corrected claim or certification of origin by importers (§ 182.122), corrected certification of origin by U.S. exporters or producers (§ 182.123), and the framework for correcting claims or certifications of origin (§ 182.124). The regulations in subpart K, which were previously reserved as §§ 182.111-182.114, are redesignated as §§ 182.121-182.124 due to changes in the numbering structure of subparts I and J of part 182, as discussed above. These provisions are in accordance with Articles 5.13, 5.4.2, 5.6.3, and 7.18 of the USMCA.
As stated in § 182.121, except as otherwise provided in subpart K, all criminal, civil, or administrative penalties which may be imposed on U.S. importers, exporters, and producers for violations of the customs and related U.S. laws and regulations will also apply to U.S. importers, exporters, and producers for violations of the U.S. laws and regulations relating to the USMCA. An importer who makes a corrected claim or certification of origin, and an exporter or producer who provides written notification of an incorrect certification of origin will not be subject to civil or administrative penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592 if the corrected claim, certification of origin, or written notification is made promptly and voluntarily. Section 182.124,
Part 190,
Under section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), agencies generally are required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
For the same reasons, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The USMCA entered into force on July 1, 2020. CBP provided guidance to the public on how to comply with the requirements of the USMCA by posting on the CBP website, available at
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Rules involving the foreign affairs function of the United States are exempt from the requirements of Executive Orders 13563 and 12866. Because this rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States by implementing a trilaterally negotiated agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, this rule is not subject to the provisions of Executive Orders 13563 and 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The collection of information in this document has been approved by OMB in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under OMB control numbers 1651-0117, 1651-0098, and 1651-0023. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The collections of information and recordkeeping requirements related to this rule have been approved by OMB under an emergency revision and extension of collection number 1651-0117 (Free Trade Agreements), an emergency revision of collection number 1651-0098 (NAFTA Regulations and Certificate of Origin), and an emergency revision and extension of collection number 1651-0023 (CBP Form 28 Request For Information). The revision of collection number 1651-0117 is necessary for CBP to collect the information needed to implement the USMCA. The revision of collection number 1651-0023 is necessary to reflect an increase in burden hours due to the use of CBP Form 28 for an additional purpose: Requesting additional information needed for enforcing the USMCA. The revision of collection number 1651-0098 is necessary to reflect the reduction in burden hours that results from the USMCA superseding NAFTA and the repeal of the NAFTA Implementation Act, as of the USMCA's entry into force date of July 1, 2020. Importers, who did not claim preferential tariff treatment at the time of importation, have one year from the date of importation of the originating goods to file post-importation claims. These importers may need to use the NAFTA Certificate of Origin to file a post-importation claim for goods from Canada and Mexico entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, prior to July 1, 2020 during that one-year time period. Once one year has elapsed, CBP will discontinue this information collection. The likely respondents for these information collections are importers, exporters, producers, and customs brokers.
The information collection requirements will result in the following estimated burden hours:
Comments concerning the collection of information and the accuracy of the estimated annual burden, and suggestions for reducing that burden, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503. A copy should also be sent to the Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177. Comments are specifically welcome on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the mission of the agencies, and whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collection; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to maintain the information. Comments should be received on or before September 7, 2021.
This rulemaking is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1), pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or that of his or her delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.
Bonds, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.
Canada, Mexico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.
Imports.
Labeling, Packaging and containers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Canada, Exports, Mexico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.
Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Claims, Exports, Foreign trade zones, Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.
For the reasons stated above, amend parts 10, 102, 132, 134, 163, 182, and 190 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1321, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1508, 1623, 1624, 4513.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624, 3592, 4513.
The addition reads as follows:
The additions read as follows:
(l)
(1) Averaging;
(2) “Last-in, first-out;”
(3) “First-in, first-out;” or
(4) Any other method that is recognized in the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) of the country in which the production is performed or is otherwise accepted by that country.
(q) * * *
(3) In the case of a good or material under the USMCA, its customs value or transaction value within the meaning of Appendix A to part 182 of this chapter.
(c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section apply only to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, prior to July 1, 2020.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1623, 1624.
Sections 132.15, 132.17, and 132.18 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1202 (additional U.S. Note 3 to Chapter 2, HTSUS; additional U.S. Note 8 to Chapter 17, HTSUS; and subchapter II of Chapter 99, HTSUS, respectively), 1484, 1508.
(a) * * * For sugar-containing products defined in 15 CFR 2015.2(a), and as described in paragraph 15 of Appendix 2, Tariff Schedule of the United States—(Tariff Rate Quotas), to Annex 2-B of Chapter 2 of the Agreement Between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA), for which preferential tariff treatment is claimed under the USMCA, and that are products of a participating country, as defined in 15 CFR 2015.2(e), the importer must possess a valid export certificate in order to claim the in-quota tariff rate of duty on the products at the time they are entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption. * * *
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1304, 1624.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * * Further work or material added to an article in another country must effect a substantial transformation in order to render such other country the “country of origin” within the meaning of this part; however, for a good of a NAFTA or USMCA country, the marking rules set forth in part 102 of this chapter (hereinafter referred to as the part 102 Rules) will determine the country of origin.
(h) * * * NAFTA is not applicable to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after July 1, 2020.
(i)
(j)
(l)
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1484, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1624.
Section 163.2 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 3904, 3907.
The addition reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(2)
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i) and General Note 11, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624, 4513, 4535;
Section 182.1 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 4502;
Subpart D also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1520(d);
Subpart E also issued under 19 U.S.C. 4534;
Subpart 182.61 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 4531, 4532;
Subpart G also issued under 19 U.S.C. 4533.
The definitions applicable to rules of origin are contained in Appendix A. This section sets forth the general definitions used throughout this part. As used in this part, the following terms will have the meanings indicated unless either the context in which they are used requires a different meaning or a different definition is prescribed for a particular section of this part:
(1) Charge equivalent to an internal tax imposed consistently with Article III:2 of the GATT 1994;
(2) Fee or other charge in connection with the importation commensurate with the cost of services rendered;
(3) Antidumping or countervailing duty; and
(4) Premium offered or collected on an imported good arising out of any tendering system in respect of the administration of quantitative import restrictions, tariff-rate quotas, or tariff preference levels;
(1) Fuel and energy,
(2) Tools, dies, and molds,
(3) Spare parts and materials used or consumed in the maintenance of equipment or buildings,
(4) Lubricants, greases, compounding materials and other materials used or consumed in production or used to operate equipment or buildings,
(5) Gloves, glasses, footwear, clothing, safety equipment, and supplies,
(6) Equipment, devices and supplies used or consumed for testing or inspecting the goods,
(7) Catalysts and solvents, and
(8) Any other material that is not incorporated into the good but if the use in the production of the good can reasonably be demonstrated to be a part of that production;
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(1) Need not be in a prescribed format but must be in writing or must be transmitted electronically pursuant to any electronic means authorized by CBP for that purpose;
(2) May be provided on an invoice or any other document, except an invoice or commercial document issued in the territory of a non-USMCA country;
(3) Must be in the possession of the importer at the time the claim for preferential tariff treatment is made;
(4) Must include the following information to be valid:
(i) Whether the certifier is the importer, exporter, or producer in accordance with this subpart;
(ii) The certifier's name, title, address (including country), telephone number, and email address;
(iii) The exporter's name, address (including country), email address, and telephone number if different from the certifier, unless the producer is completing the certification of origin and does not know the identity of the exporter;
(iv) The producer's name, address (including country), email address, and telephone number, if different from the certifier or exporter; or if there are multiple producers, “Various” or a list of producers (
(v) If known, the importer's name, address, email address, and telephone number; or if there are multiple importers, “Various” or a list of importers;
(vi) The legal name, address (including country), telephone number, and email address (if any) of the responsible official or authorized agent of the importer, exporter, or producer signing the certification;
(vii) A description of the good for which preferential tariff treatment is claimed, which must be sufficiently detailed to relate it to the invoice and the Harmonized System (HS) nomenclature;
(viii) The HTSUS tariff classification, to six or more digits, as necessary for the specific change in tariff classification rule for the good set forth in General Note 11, HTSUS;
(ix) The applicable rule of origin set forth in General Note 11, HTSUS, under which the good qualifies as an originating good;
(x) In the case of a good listed in Schedule II of Appendix A of this part, the following statement must be included: “Schedule II of the USMCA Rules of Origin Uniform Regulations”;
(xi) If the certification of origin covers a single shipment of a good, the invoice number related to the exportation, if known;
(xii) In case of a blanket certification issued with respect to multiple shipments of identical goods within any period specified in the certification of origin, not exceeding 12 months from the date of certification, the period that the certification covers; and
(5) Must include the following statement: “I certify that the goods described in this document qualify as originating and the information contained in this document is true and accurate. I assume responsibility for proving such representations and agree to maintain and present upon request or to make available during a verification visit, documentation necessary to support this certification.”
(b)
(1) The address of the exporter provided under paragraph (a)(4)(iii) is the place of export of the good in a USMCA country's territory;
(2) The address of a producer provided under paragraph (a)(4)(iv) is the place of production of the good in a USMCA country's territory; and
(3) The address of the importer provided under paragraph (a)(4)(v) must be in a USMCA country's territory.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(i) The certifier of the certification of origin of the good having information, including documents, that demonstrate that the good is originating; or
(ii) In the case of an exporter who is not the producer of the good, reasonable reliance on the producer's written representation, such as in a certification of origin, that the good is originating.
(2) CBP may not require that an exporter or producer complete a certification of origin, or provide a certification of origin or written representation to another person.
(g)
(1) A shipment of goods into the United States, which may consist of:
(i) A single shipment of goods that results in the filing of one or more entries; or
(ii) More than one shipment of goods that results in the filing of one entry.
(2) Multiple shipments of identical goods into the United States that occur within a specified blanket period, not exceeding 12 months, set out in the certification.
(h)
(a)
(1) Will be deemed to have made a statement based on a valid certification of origin that the good qualifies as an originating good;
(2) Is responsible for the truthfulness of the claim and of all the information and data contained in the certification of origin provided for in § 182.12; and
(3) Is responsible for submitting supporting documents requested by CBP, and for the truthfulness of the information contained in those documents. When a certification of origin prepared by an exporter or producer forms the basis of a claim for preferential tariff treatment and CBP requests the submission of supporting documents, the importer will provide to CBP, or arrange for the direct submission by the exporter or producer of, information relied on by the exporter or producer in preparing the certification.
(b)
(a)
(1) A non-commercial importation of a good; or
(2) A commercial importation for which the value of the originating goods does not exceed $2,500 in U.S. dollars.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) The purchase, cost, value, and shipping of, and payment for, the good or material;
(ii) The purchase, cost, value, and shipping of, and payment for, all materials, including indirect materials, used in the production of the good or material; and
(iii) The production of the good in the form in which the good is exported or the production of the material in the form in which it was sold.
(2)
(3)
Notwithstanding any other available remedy, where a good would have qualified as an originating good when it was imported into the United States but no claim for preferential tariff treatment was made, the importer of that good may file a claim for a refund of any excess customs duties at any time within one year after the date of importation of the good in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1520(d) and the procedures set forth in § 182.32. Unless the importer fails to comply with the applicable requirements in this part, CBP may refund any excess customs duties by liquidation or reliquidation of the entry covering the good in accordance with § 182.33.
(a)
(b)
(1) A written or electronic declaration or statement stating that the good was an originating good at the time of importation and setting forth the number and date of the entry or entries covering the good;
(2) A copy of a written or electronic certification of origin prepared in accordance with § 182.12 demonstrating that the good qualifies for preferential tariff treatment;
(3) A written statement indicating whether the importer of the good provided a copy of the entry summary or equivalent documentation to any other person. If such documentation was so provided, the statement must identify each recipient by name, CBP identification number, and address and must specify the date on which the documentation was provided; and
(4) A written statement indicating whether or not any person has filed a protest, petition, or request for reliquidation; and if any such protest, petition, or request for reliquidation has been filed, the statement must identify the filing by number and date.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(d)
(2)
(3)
This subpart sets forth the provisions regarding drawback claims and duty-deferral programs under Article 2.5 of the USMCA and applies to any good that is a “good subject to USMCA drawback” within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 4534. The provisions of this subpart apply to goods which are entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, into the United States on or after July 1, 2020. The requirements and procedures set forth in this subpart for USMCA drawback are in addition to the general definitions, requirements, and procedures for all drawback claims set forth in part 190 of this chapter, unless otherwise specifically provided in this subpart. Also, the requirements and procedures set forth in this subpart for USMCA duty-deferral programs are in addition to the requirements and procedures for manipulation, manufacturing, and smelting and refining warehouses contained in part 19 and part 144 of this chapter, for foreign trade zones under part 146 of this chapter, and for temporary importations under bond contained in part 10 of this chapter.
The following duties or fees which may be applicable to a good entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption in the Customs territory of the United States are not subject to drawback under this subpart:
(a) Antidumping and countervailing duties;
(b) A premium offered or collected on a good with respect to quantitative import restrictions, tariff-rate quotas or tariff preference levels; and
(c) Customs duties paid or owed under unused merchandise substitution drawback. There will be no payment of such drawback under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2) on goods exported to Canada or Mexico.
Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, drawback is authorized for an imported good that is entered for consumption and is:
(a) Subsequently exported to Canada or Mexico (
(b) Used as a material in the production of another good that is subsequently exported to Canada or Mexico (
(c) Substituted by a good of the same kind and quality as defined in § 182.44(d) and used as a material in the production of another good that is subsequently exported to Canada or Mexico (
(a)
(1) The total duties paid or owed on the good in the United States; or
(2) The total amount of duties paid on the exported good upon subsequent importation into Canada or Mexico.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
(1) Subsequently exported to Canada or Mexico;
(2) Used as a material in the production of another good that is subsequently exported to Canada or Mexico; or
(3) Substituted by a good of the same 8-digit HTSUS subheading number and used as a material in the production of another good that is subsequently exported to Canada or Mexico.
(b)
(1)
the “same condition” includes a good that has been subjected to any of the following operations provided that no such operation materially alters the characteristics of the good:
(i) Mere dilution with water or another substance;
(ii) Cleaning, including removal of rust, grease, paint or other coatings;
(iii) Application of preservative, including lubricants, protective encapsulation, or preservation paint;
(iv) Trimming, filing, slitting or cutting;
(v) Putting up in measured doses, or packing, repacking, packaging or repackaging; or
(vi) Testing, marking, labelling, sorting, grading, or inspecting a good.
(2)
(B)
(ii)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) To a duty-free shop,
(2) For ship's stores or supplies for ships or aircrafts, or
(3) For the use in a project undertaken jointly by the United States and a USMCA country, and destined to become the property of the United States, are eligible upon exportation for drawback without regard to the limitations on drawback set forth in § 182.44.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(i)
(A) A completed CBP Form 331, or its electronic equivalent, to establish the manufacture of goods made with imported merchandise and, if applicable, the identity of substituted domestic, duty-paid or duty-free merchandise, and including the tariff classification number of the imported merchandise;
(B) CBP Form 7501, or its electronic equivalent, or the import entry number;
(C) [Reserved]
(D) Evidence of exportation and satisfactory evidence of the payment of duties in Canada or Mexico, as provided in paragraph (c) of this section;
(E) Waiver of right to drawback. If the person exporting to Canada or Mexico was not the importer or the manufacturer, written waivers executed by the importer or manufacturer and by any intervening person to whom the good was transferred must be submitted in order for the claim to be considered complete; and
(F) An affidavit of the party claiming drawback stating that no other drawback claim has been made on the designated goods, that such party has not provided an exporter's certification of origin pertaining to the exported goods to another party except as stated on the drawback claim, and that the party agrees to notify CBP if the party subsequently provides such an exporter's certification of origin to any person.
(ii)
(A) The foreign entry number and date of entry, the HTSUS classification for the foreign entry, the amount of duties paid for the foreign entry and the applicable exchange rate, and, if applicable, a certification from the claimant that provides as follows: “Same condition—The undersigned certifies that the merchandise herein described is in the same condition as when it was imported under the above import entry(s) and further certifies that this merchandise was not subjected to any process of manufacture or other operation except the allowable operations as provided for by regulation.”;
(B) Information sufficient to trace the movement of the imported goods after importation;
(C) In-bond application submitted pursuant to part 18 of this chapter, if applicable. This is required for merchandise which is examined at one port but exported through border points outside of that port. Such goods must travel in bond from the location where they were examined to the point of the border crossing (exportation). If examination is waived, in-bond transportation is not required;
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G) An affidavit of the party claiming drawback stating that no other drawback claim has been made on the designated goods.
(iii)
(A) Customs Form 7501, or its electronic equivalent, to establish the fact of importation, the receipt of the imported goods, and the identity of the party to whom drawback is payable (
(B) [Reserved]
(C) CBP Form 7512, or its electronic equivalent, if applicable;
(D) Notification of intent to export or waiver of prior notice. CBP must be notified at least 5 business days in advance of the intended date of exportation in order to have the opportunity to examine the goods (
(E) Evidence of exportation, as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(E) of this section.
(iv)
(v)
(c) [Reserved]
All records required to be kept by the exporter, importer, manufacturer or producer under this subpart with respect to manufacturing drawback claims, and all records kept by others which complement the records of the importer, exporter, manufacturer or producer, including any person who transfers or enables another person to make or perfect a drawback claim, must be retained for at least three years from the date of liquidation of such claims or longer period if required by law (
(a)
(b) [Reserved]
(c)
(a)
(b)
If a claim for a refund of duties is allowed by the Canadian or Mexican customs administration under Article 5.11 of the USMCA (post-importation claim) or under any other circumstance after drawback has been granted under this subpart, the appropriate CBP official must reliquidate the drawback claim and obtain a refund of the amount paid in drawback in excess of the amount permitted to be paid under § 182.44.
The allowance of a claim for drawback, waiver or reduction of duties submitted under this subpart is subject to such verification, including verification with the Canadian or Mexican customs administration, of any documentation obtained in Canada or Mexico and submitted in connection with the claim, as CBP may deem necessary.
This subpart contains the general origin verification and determination provisions applicable to goods claiming preferential tariff treatment under § 182.11(b) or § 182.32.
(a)
(1) Requests for information or questionnaires, including a request for documents, to the importer, exporter, or producer;
(2) Verification visits to the premises of the exporter or producer in Mexico or Canada in order to request information, including documents, and to observe production processes and facilities; and
(3) Any other procedure to which the USMCA countries may agree.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(1)
(i) The objective and scope of the verification, including the specific issue that the verification is seeking to resolve; and
(ii) Sufficient information to identify the good or material that is the subject of the verification.
(2)
(ii)
(b)
(1) The objective and scope of the verification, including the specific issue
(2) Sufficient information to identify the good or material that is the subject of the verification;
(3) A request for the written consent of the exporter or producer whose premises are going to be visited;
(4) The legal authority for the visit;
(5) The proposed date and location of the visit;
(6) The specific purpose of the visit; and
(7) The names and titles of the U.S. officials conducting the visit.
(c)
(d)
(2) For purposes of a verification, CBP will send all communication to the exporter or producer by any means that can produce a confirmation of receipt including:
(i) Electronic mail;
(ii) International courier services;
(iii) Certified or registered mail services; or
(iv) A CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system.
(e)
(f)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(2)
(d)
(1) The observers do not participate in a manner other than as observers;
(2) The failure of the exporter or producer to designate observers does not result in the postponement of the visit; and
(3) The exporter or producer identifies to CBP any observers designated to be present during the visit.
(a)
(1) A description of the good that was the subject of the verification;
(2) A statement setting forth the findings of facts made in connection with the verification and upon which the determination is based; and
(3) The legal basis for the determination.
(b)
(c)
(2)
(i) The certification of origin is not submitted to CBP upon request as required pursuant to § 182.12(a);
(ii) The claim or certification of origin is invalid or based on inaccurate information and is not corrected within the required time period pursuant to § 182.11(c);
(iii) CBP determines that the importer, exporter, or producer failed to provide sufficient information to substantiate the claim;
(iv) CBP determines that the good does not qualify for preferential tariff treatment, including failing to meet the rules of origin requirements in General Note 11, HTSUS, and Appendix A to this part;
(v) The importer, exporter, or producer fails to respond to the request for information pursuant to § 182.73(f)(1) subject to the conditions in § 182.75(c)(1);
(vi) The importer, exporter, or producer fails to respond to the questionnaire pursuant to § 182.73(f)(1);
(vii) The exporter or producer fails to consent to a verification visit pursuant to § 182.74;
(viii) The importer, exporter, or producer fails to maintain records demonstrating that the good qualifies for preferential tariff treatment as required pursuant to this part;
(ix) The importer, exporter, or producer denies access, as requested by CBP, to records or documentation that are in its possession or required to be maintained pursuant to this part;
(x) The exporter or producer denies access to records or documentation that are in its possession or required to be maintained, or to facilities during a verification visit as required pursuant to this part;
(xi) CBP finds a pattern of conduct pursuant to § 182.76; or
(xii) CBP determines that any other reason to deny a claim for preferential tariff treatment as set forth in this part applies
(3)
(4)
Where the verification reveals a pattern of conduct by the importer, exporter, or producer of false or unsupported representations relevant to a claim that a good imported into the United States qualifies for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA, CBP may withhold preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA for entries of identical goods covered by subsequent statements, declarations, or certifications by that importer, exporter, or producer until CBP determines that representations of that person are in conformity with this part and with General Note 11, HTSUS.
(a)
(b)
(1) The samples are imported solely for the purpose of soliciting orders for foreign goods or services; and
(2) If valued over one U.S. dollar, the samples are properly marked, torn, perforated or otherwise treated prior to arrival in the United States so that they are unsuitable for sale or for use except as commercial samples.
(a)
(b)
(1) In their condition, as exported from the United States to Canada or Mexico, are incomplete for their intended use and for which the processing operation performed in Canada or Mexico constitutes an operation that is performed as a matter of course in the preparation or manufacture of finished goods; or
(2) Are imported under a duty-deferral program that are exported for repair or alteration and are not re-imported under a duty-deferral program.
(c)
Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, all criminal, civil, or administrative penalties which may be imposed on U.S. importers, exporters, and producers for violations of the customs and related U.S. laws and regulations will also apply to U.S. importers, exporters, and producers for violations of the U.S. laws and regulations relating to the USMCA.
An importer who makes a corrected claim under § 182.11(c) will not be subject to civil or administrative penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592 for having made an incorrect claim or having submitted an incorrect certification of origin, provided that the corrected claim is promptly and voluntarily made in accordance with § 182.124.
Civil or administrative penalties provided for under 19 U.S.C. 1592 will not be imposed on an exporter or producer who completed a certification of origin for a good exported from the United States to Canada or Mexico when the exporter or producer promptly and voluntarily provides written notification pursuant to §§ 182.21(b) and 182.124 with respect to the making of an incorrect certification of origin.
(a) “
(1)(i) Done before the commencement of a formal investigation, within the meaning of § 162.74(g) of this chapter; or
(ii) Done before any of the events specified in § 162.74(i) of this chapter has occurred; or
(iii) Done within 30 days after the importer, exporter, or producer initially becomes aware that the claim or certification is incorrect; and
(2) Accompanied by a statement setting forth the information specified in paragraph (c) of this section; and
(3) In the case of a corrected claim or certification of origin by an importer, accompanied or followed by a tender of any actual loss of duties and merchandise processing fees, if applicable, in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(1) Identifies the class or kind of good to which the incorrect claim or certification of origin relates;
(2) In the case of a corrected claim or certification of origin by an importer, identifies each affected import transaction, including each port of importation and the approximate date of each importation;
(3) In the case of a written notification of an incorrect certification of origin by an exporter or producer, identifies each affected export transaction, including each port of exportation and the approximate date of each exportation. A producer who provides written notification that certain information in a certification of origin is incorrect and who is unable to identify the specific export transactions under this paragraph must provide as much information concerning those transactions as the producer, by the exercise of good faith and due diligence, is able to obtain;
(4) Specifies the nature of the incorrect statements or omissions regarding the claim or certification of origin; and
(5) Sets forth, to the best of the person's knowledge, the true and accurate information or data which should have been covered by or provided in the claim or certification of origin, and states that the person will provide any additional information or data which is unknown at the time of making the corrected claim or certification of origin within 30 days or within any extension of that 30-day period as CBP may permit in order for the person to obtain the information or data.
(d)
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1313, 1624;
§§ 190.2, 190.10, 190.15, 190.23, 190.38, 190.51 issued under 19 U.S.C. 1508;
Troy A. Miller, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Robert F. Altneu, who is the Director of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division for CBP, for purposes of publication in the
Approved: