The Administrative Conference Act, 5 U.S.C. 591-596, established the Administrative Conference of the United States. The Conference studies the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the administrative procedures used by Federal agencies and makes recommendations to agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States for procedural improvements (5 U.S.C. 594(1)). For further information about the Conference and its activities, see www.acus.gov . At its virtual Seventy-fourth Plenary Session on June 17, 2021, the Assembly of the Conference adopted four recommendations.

Recommendation 2021-1, Managing Mass, Computer-Generated, and Falsely Attributed Comments . This recommendation offers agencies best practices for managing mass, computer-generated, and falsely attributed comments in agency rulemakings. It provides guidance for agencies on using technology to process such comments in the most efficient way possible while ensuring that the rulemaking process is transparent to prospective commenters and the public more broadly.

Recommendation 2021-2, Periodic Retrospective Review . This recommendation offers practical suggestions to agencies about how to establish periodic retrospective review plans. It provides guidance for agencies on identifying regulations for review, determining the optimal frequency of review, soliciting public feedback to enhance their review efforts, identifying staff to participate in review, and coordinating review with other agencies.

Recommendation 2021-3, Early Input on Regulatory Alternatives .This recommendation offers guidance about whether, when, and how agencies should solicit input on alternatives to rules under consideration before issuing notices of proposed rulemaking. It identifies specific, targeted measures for obtaining public input on regulatory alternatives from knowledgeable persons in ways that are cost-effective and equitable and that maximize the likelihood of obtaining diverse, useful responses.

Recommendation 2021-4, Virtual Hearings in Agency Adjudication . This recommendation addresses the use of virtual hearings—that is, proceedings in which participants attend remotely using a personal computer or mobile device—in agency adjudications. Drawing heavily on agencies' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, the recommendation identifies best practices for improving existing virtual-hearing programs and establishing new ones in accord with principles of fairness and efficiency and with due regard for participant satisfaction.

The Appendix below sets forth the full texts of these four recommendations, as well as three timely filed Separate Statements associated with Recommendation 2021-1, Managing Mass, Computer-Generated, and Falsely Attributed Comments . The Conference will transmit the recommendations to affected agencies, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States, as appropriate. The recommendations are not binding, so the entities to which they are addressed will make decisions on their implementation.

The Conference based these recommendations on research reports that are posted at: https://www.acus.gov/meetings-and-events/plenary-meeting/74th-plenary-session-virtual . Committee-proposed drafts of the recommendations, and public comments received in advance of the plenary session, are also available using the same link.

On December 16, 2015, FSIS published a Federal Register notice (80 FR 78166) announcing the availability of and opportunity to comment on a revised Agency compliance guideline for controlling Salmonella and Campylobacter in raw poultry. This revision was the fourth edition of the guideline the Agency had developed to assist establishments that slaughter or process raw poultry products to minimize or prevent the risk of Salmonella and Campylobacter in their operations.

FSIS has updated the guideline contents to reflect the most recent best practices, supported by current peer-reviewed literature and analyses of FSIS data. Updates include information on using neutralizing agents in sampling to prevent carryover of antimicrobial substances and a current list of antimicrobials for establishment use. Also included are improvements in the information on pre-harvest practices, with a comprehensive revision of the litter/bedding section. With the updated information, establishments of various sizes and configurations have practical options for reducing and inhibiting the growth of pathogens commonly found in raw poultry.

In response to the comments, FSIS also reviewed the recommendations in the previous version of the guideline and assessed each section for utility and effectiveness. The resulting changes include a complete revision of the sections on litter and bedding and updates to FSIS data on the rate at which Salmonella or Campylobacter contamination can be attributed to source materials of different composition. Also, the Agency is now issuing the revised document as two separate guidelines, one focused on control of Salmonella, and the other on Campylobacter. The guidelines are posted at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/fsis-guidelines. Although comments will no longer be accepted through regulations.gov on these guidelines, FSIS will update these documents as necessary if new information becomes available.

FSIS received fifteen comments in response to the December 16, 2015, Federal Register notice and guideline. The commenters included consumer and industry associations, individuals, and firms that specialize in providing technology and services to the regulated industry. The comments and the Agency's responses, discussed below, have been grouped by topic area.

Comment: A poultry industry association remarked that considerations and sampling for Salmonella and Campylobacter should not affect the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system of the receiving establishment. The same association stated that, while good husbandry practices are important, the goal of obtaining pathogen-free flocks and many of the recommendations for doing so are unrealistic and unnecessary. According to the association, the Agency should revise the discussion of pre-harvest practices in the guideline to reflect currently available, commercially proven methods that can be practically implemented.

Response: Information about pre-harvest conditions and particularly, pathogen levels on incoming flocks, can inform the establishment's hazard analysis and decisions on controls to include in its HACCP plan. In the guideline, FSIS acknowledges that there may be no single pre-harvest intervention that eliminates Salmonella and Campylobacter as pre-harvest hazards. The Agency recommends instead a multi-hurdle approach involving successive interventions that can have a cumulative effect in reducing the pathogen contamination of birds. The Agency has modified some language in the pre-harvest section of the guideline to reflect current scientific literature.

Comment: The poultry industry association said that another area of concern is the recommendation to change bedding between each flock. According to the poultry industry association, that is not always the best way to control Salmonella growth because new litter can be a bigger risk factor for Salmonella than old litter, depending on the pH profile involved. The poultry industry association argued that the section on transportation crate maintenance is similarly impractical.

Response: Litter, or bedding, can be considered a potential reservoir for contamination with Salmonella and other pathogens. The presence or absence of contamination in litter is among the pre-harvest conditions of which a prudent establishment should be aware, along with clean transport crates. FSIS has updated the pre-harvest and transportation sections of the guideline with practical suggestions, based on informative studies, and also updated the section on scheduled slaughter (taking account of pathogen loads on incoming flocks).

Comment: An animal health and food-safety technology and services provider recommended changes in the guideline discussion of cleaning procedures by adding, after the removal of debris, dry-pickup of gross soils and pre-rinsing to remove remaining soil before using a cleaning agent, such as a detergent. This commenter also recommended that the guideline include a table (provided by the commenter) showing the factors to consider when choosing a sanitizer for a particular application.

Response: FSIS has accepted the recommended edits to the discussion of cleaning procedures in the sanitation section. The Agency has also removed some outdated references that the commenter noted and added the table of sanitizer characteristics.

Comment: The poultry industry association said that the guideline includes prescriptive practices that are neither reasonable nor necessary and that are not conducive to chicken processing. For example, the association stated that sanitizing hand-held knives between each carcass is not reasonable, nor would it result in significant pathogen reduction on final products. According to the association, sanitization between each carcass would increase handling time and create more opportunity for pathogen outgrowth, thereby increasing food-safety risks.

Response: The guideline recommends sanitizing knives in 180-degree water or an antimicrobial solution after cutting or trimming each carcass, which should result in the reduced transfer of pathogens from one carcass to the next.

FSIS guidance is intended to offer practical solutions to food safety problems, with some recommendations likely more useful in small and very small establishments and others more suitable for large establishments. Most of the information in this guidance should be useful to all establishments, including small and very small establishments. Although bacterial outgrowth is not a result of time alone, it would certainly be one consideration for an establishment contemplating this factor in its process.

Comment: The poultry industry association added that other recommendations in the guidelines, such as that to limit solution reuse during injection marinating to prevent contamination, is not supported by scientific evidence.

Response: FSIS updated the guidelines to include citations to scientific studies indicating that marination of non-heat-treated poultry parts can result in larger bacterial populations on the poultry, 1 depending on the type of marinade used. 2 Injection or other contact across carcasses can introduce a potential point for cross-contamination. A prime example in the guidance showing this mechanism of internalizing pathogens is an outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in beef steaks that occurred in 2007. 3 Establishments should consider the effects of injected solutions in their hazard analyses (9 CFR 417.2(a)) and support all decisions made in the hazard analysis, 9 CFR 417.5(a)(1). At this step in a process, an establishment could address the risk in several ways, depending on its process. One approach described in the guidelines is the use of an ultraviolet light intervention applied to the marinade solution between uses. 4 Additionally, the formulation of a marinade may include antimicrobial components, to achieve a specific pH or antimicrobial activity; examples of acceptable ingredients for this use are listed in the lookup table of FSIS Directive 7120.1, “Safe and Suitable Ingredients.”

Comment: A poultry industry association asked the Agency to revise its recommendations on lotting practices to remove the emphasis on “microbiological independence” relating to pathogens that do not legally adulterate raw product by their presence alone, or per se.

Response: FSIS did not make changes to its recommendations on lotting practices. Concepts related to microbiological independence, or the unlikelihood of cross-contamination, apply to all pathogens. Considering lotting practices in such cases can help to maximize the value of testing and process control throughout production. Under HACCP, establishments may test for pathogens to verify that they are adequately addressing microbial hazards.

Also, as discussed in the December 6, 2012, Federal Register Notice on HACCP-plan reassessment for not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) comminuted poultry products (77 FR 72686, at 72689), when a NRTE product is credibly linked to an outbreak of illness caused by a pathogen, FSIS may consider the product to be adulterated, even if the pathogen does not adulterate the implicated NRTE product per se.

Comment: The poultry industry association said that, in addition to the above concerns regarding microbiologically-based lotting practices, the Agency should be aware that: Lot-traceback information may be commercially sensitive; separation in time and space is difficult in establishments running multiple lines and mixing flocks; and microbiological testing takes days to complete—too late for processed poultry already in commerce. For these reasons, according to the poultry industry association, the Agency should remove these recommendations from the guideline.

Response: As mentioned in the previous response, in situations where pathogenic organisms in NRTE products have been linked to foodborne illness outbreaks, FSIS has deemed the products to be adulterated. FSIS and members of the regulated industry have been interested in preventing situations like those. Accordingly, the guideline contains recommendations for lot separation, traceback, and microbiological testing. These approaches to monitoring, tracking, and controlling potentially contaminated products can help in preventing pathogen spread and illness outbreaks.

Comment: The poultry industry association said that recordkeeping recommendations must be relevant to establishment operations and must allow for flexibility according to establishment size and resources.

Response: The recordkeeping recommendations in the guideline are premised on the assumption that the establishment already has records that meets the HACCP, Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures, and other regulatory requirements. Establishments have significant flexibility in meeting these recordkeeping requirements and recordkeeping will vary in technical and other aspects from establishment to establishment. Additionally, the guideline sets out recordkeeping elements that are associated with sampling and testing and that are fairly basic and general. As such, FSIS has not revised the recordkeeping guidance.

Comment: A poultry industry association requested that the Agency clarify key concepts and terms used in the guidance. For example, the association said that, while FSIS states throughout the guidance that establishments should reduce pathogens to “acceptable levels,” the guideline is not clear enough about what those acceptable levels are. The poultry industry association suggested that FSIS use its pathogen reduction performance standards as examples of acceptable levels and state that other metrics than prevalence might be used in evaluating acceptable levels.

Response: In the context used in the guidelines, “acceptable levels” of pathogens are defined by an establishment for use as control parameters in its HACCP system. These upper and lower control limits may use prevalence to measure control of a hazard over time. As defined in the 2009 review of FSIS public health risk-based systems by the Institute of Medicine, “[a] process is in control when, within the limits of a stable and predictable process variation, all hazards are controlled to an acceptable level.”  5

Data collected initially by the establishment can be used in process mapping for HACCP validation. The establishment can compare pathogen levels on incoming and final product to determine whether the process is achieving the desired reduction in microbial loads. Then, if the pathogen testing results demonstrate that the process is functioning correctly, the establishment can use the testing results for indicator bacteria to set a maximum limit for each indicator at each collection point. FSIS agrees with the commenter, however, that where the Agency's pathogen-reduction performance standards apply, an acceptable level would be one that is at or below the pathogen limit of a standard. Just as in the 2015 guidance, the updated guidance continues to advise an establishment seeking to reduce microbial hazards to consider FSIS's applicable Salmonella and Campylobacter performance standards for carcasses, parts, and comminuted poultry.

Comment: The poultry industry association said that, additionally, the guideline frequently instructs establishments to reevaluate their processes if they are resulting in “high numbers” of Campylobacter or Salmonella subtypes more commonly associated with human illness, without defining what the Agency views as a “high level” of these serotypes. Further, the poultry industry association argued that serotypes have little or no practical impact on HACCP systems. According to the commenter, a good HACCP system should work to control all Salmonella serotypes or Campylobacter species regardless of their serotype.

Response: Under HACCP, criteria for additional testing or actions are defined by the establishment. These criteria could be derived from the establishment's own baseline data, as well as the frequency at which serotypes of human-health concern are identified in that baseline. While FSIS agrees that HACCP systems should address all pathogens, FSIS uses characterization data, including serotypes of increased human health concern, to prioritize further evaluation and assessment of an establishment's HACCP system. Specifically, if an establishment does not meet FSIS performance standards, as part of the public health review evaluation (PHRE), FSIS will assess whether the Agency has found frequent serotypes of public health concern in the establishment's product. If so, FSIS will also likely conduct a food safety assessment (FSA) at the establishment.

Comment: A poultry industry association noted that the 2015 guidance appears to conflate the terms “prevalence” and “load” when referring to recommendations for decreasing Salmonella and Campylobacter. According to the poultry industry association, the “prevalence” of a pathogen on raw poultry product is a distinctly different microbial sampling metric than the “load,” or quantity, of pathogen on a raw poultry product. The prevalence of a pathogen refers to the presence or absence of a pathogen, regardless of quantity and is usually expressed as a percentage or rate of occurrence over time. By contrast, the microbial load of a pathogen refers to the concentration of bacteria (for example, in colony-forming units) in or on a unit of product. Yet, according to the poultry industry association, the guideline uses the terms “prevalence” and “load” interchangeably when recommending practices to decrease the “prevalence” or “load” of Salmonella and Campylobacter on raw poultry products. The poultry industry association argued that these two metrics are not, in fact, interchangeable. Since FSIS had reiterated that the Agency will focus on the presence of Salmonella or Campylobacter rather than on load, the poultry industry association recommended that the Agency revise the guidance for consistency in referring to “prevalence” rather than “load.” According to the poultry industry association, the guidance should refer to “prevalence” rather than “load.”

Response: FSIS disagrees that it conflated the terms “prevalence” and “load” and did not make the poultry association's recommended changes to the guidelines. Establishments are not limited to considering only prevalence, which may be derived from qualitative test results over time, when designing and implementing a HACCP system. Available tools for enumeration can help inform a prudent establishment so that it can consider the impact of pathogen load, or the actual levels of contamination in positive samples, along with the prevalence information in order to improve process-control systems.

Comment: The poultry industry association offered several recommendations intended to improve discussion in the guidance of data analysis techniques. Thus, in the area of process mapping, the poultry industry association recommended that FSIS give establishments the flexibility to use process indicators that reliably reflect their operations and environments. The poultry industry association also suggested edits to make the text more consistent with tables that show median values for indicator organisms on poultry carcasses and parts. The poultry industry association remarked that linking a product with human illness is not necessarily evidence of a loss of control by the establishment that prepared the product. The poultry industry association also stated that the use of (microbiological) performance standards is not the only way to evaluate process controls. The commenter also stated that the “moving window” approach to monitoring and assessing whether establishments meet performance standards and use of the category-ranking system has not been evaluated for assessing process control.

Response: Establishments are free to choose appropriate microbiological indicators for determining process-control effectiveness. FSIS has removed some of the material about sampling for specific indicator organisms, including the sections regarding median indicator values, as more detail is provided in the FSIS Compliance Guideline: Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection—Microbiological Sampling of Raw Poultry   6 to assist small and very small establishments that may not have their own baseline information.

While microbiological performance standards may not be the only measures of process control, they do help focus industry attention on the public health aspects of poultry processing and the need to improve processes as necessary to prevent foodborne illnesses. During the past two years, FSIS has been employing the “moving window” data-frame for microbiological test results on poultry products as a way of determining whether establishments meet performance standards over time. FSIS has evaluated the technique as a more consistent replacement for sampling sets that can better identify trends, such as seasonality, over time.

Comment: The poultry industry association recommended that FSIS adjust its picture caption concerning optimal application of antimicrobial spray to a conveyor belt and products on the belt. The poultry industry association also noted that application of the spray does reduce pathogens even if the coverage of the spray is less than complete.

Response: FSIS has modified the language of the caption in question in the guidance to clarify the point that not all the belt is being treated. The Agency acknowledges that there will be some pathogen-reduction effects like those in the illustration but recommends that the spray adequately cover the belt and products.

Comment: The poultry industry association stated that the 2015 guidance instructed establishments to evaluate their process if they encountered “high numbers” of serotypes of public health concern. According to the poultry industry association, the Agency should instead advise establishments to work at controlling all species of Salmonella or Campylobacter, regardless of serotype.

Response: The guidance encourages establishments to control all Salmonella and Campylobacter throughout their process. Establishments should consider all available information about hazards identified from their operations. This may include information about the point in the process where hazards are most often recovered, the lot or flock information, and characterization of the hazard recovered, including serotype. FSIS provides Salmonella serotype results to establishments to facilitate their efforts in identifying the appropriate response, which could include both serotype-specific interventions at pre-harvest ( e.g., vaccines) as well as Salmonella controls in the establishment.

Comment: The poultry industry association said in the section of the guidance on sampling and testing, it appeared that the Agency expected sampling and testing results for pathogens to be available in real time to assess bacterial load just before processing. The poultry industry association noted that this is not possible.

Response: FSIS has clarified the language in this section of the guidance to note that these testing options would need to be performed with adequate time allowed for the results to be used as effective tools. A number of rapid-testing methodologies may be fit-for-purpose for this use.

Comment: The poultry industry association stated that the Agency should provide additional information relating to its exploratory sampling results for raw, comminuted chicken in the guidance. The associated noted that Table 6 presents the prevalence rates of Salmonella and Campylobacter in mechanically separated chicken and ground and comminuted chicken products, organized by whether the source material had bone or skin in it. According to the poultry industry association, it would be useful to know how many samples were available for each of the statistics generated for the percent prevalence for these products, given the limited number of samples in the 2015 guideline dataset.

Response: FSIS has updated the statistics reported in Table 6 of the guidance with additional data points to strengthen the analysis. These updated tables represent 934 comminuted turkey samples and 2,688 comminuted chicken samples, more than 10 times the data points for chicken and 40 times the data points for turkey versus the data points used for the 2015 guidance. Analyses of FSIS comminuted poultry exploratory sampling results shows that it is more likely that comminuted chicken will be positive for Salmonella when its source materials contain both bone and skin (56.0%). However, for Campylobacter, comminuted chicken products made from bone-in and skinless source materials were highest. Comminuted chicken made from deboned and skinless source materials had the lowest prevalence for both pathogens (34.8% for Salmonella, and 1.7% for Campylobacter ). Statistical analyses, including that for independence and for significance, were used to evaluate the data before compiling the relative risk tables that have been updated in this edition of the guidance.

Comment: An environmental advocacy group questioned the Agency's continued support for food irradiation.

Response: The guidance includes irradiation among the safe and effective physical interventions available. While FSIS does not recommend the use of specific interventions or lethality treatments, food irradiation has been demonstrated to be both safe and effective in controlling pathogens. FSIS and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations authorize its use in the treatment of ready-to-cook poultry (9 CFR 424.22(c), citing 21 CFR 179.26)).

Comment: The same advocacy group noted that the Agency continues to recommend the use of various chemical agents to reduce the levels of Salmonella and Campylobacter in poultry processing. It asked about the role played by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in determining permissible exposure levels (PELs) for these substances and their impact on FSIS inspectors and on plant employees.

Response: While FSIS does not recommend the use of specific interventions, many chemical products have been demonstrated to be both safe and effective. Chemical substances used in the processing of meat, poultry, and egg products are approved by both FDA and FSIS before they can be used in official establishments. They are listed in the on-line table referred to in FSIS Directive 7120.1, “Safe and Suitable Ingredients used in the Production of Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products,”  7 which is updated regularly.

FSIS does not allow the use of chemicals in a manner that may be a health risk to inspection personnel. Inspectors in every establishment verify that establishments use only approved chemicals as ingredients and only within approved limits, as outlined in FSIS Directive 7120.1. In addition, the Agency has a network of occupational safety and health experts in its inspection districts and distributes information on health hazards to its workforce. The information includes the OSHA PELs and other exposure limits applying to chemicals that may be used in meat, poultry, and egg products plants. (See https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/informational/aboutfsis/audience-employees/employee-safety/environmental-safety-health. )

Comment: A poultry industry association advised FSIS to replace the “requirement” to wait “at least 60 seconds” for drip time before collecting a product sample with “a drip time appropriate to prevent excessive antimicrobial carryover.” According to the poultry industry association, establishments are familiar with the antimicrobial treatments applied to products in their operations and the appropriate neutralization periods for each treatment.

Response: FSIS has edited the language in the guidance to be more inclusive of the many antimicrobial interventions available and the manufacturers' instructions specific to each.

Comment: A poultry industry association recommended that the guidance reflect differences between Salmonella and Campylobacter. According to the association, the guideline's assertion (in the section on actions to take in response to test results) that an intervention to prevent, eliminate, or reduce Salmonella will also reduce or prevent Campylobacter is not scientifically accurate.

Response: The Agency has modified the language in question to account for the different effects of different interventions. Also, the Agency has divided the guidance into two separate documents—one addressing Salmonella, the other Campylobacter —with the aim of accounting for differences between the pathogens and ensuring that recommended controls will be effective. FSIS also revised the guidance to include additional literature supporting controls for the pathogens. The updated references may assist establishments in identifying the best process controls for Salmonella and Campylobacter in their operations.

FSIS agrees that an intervention for controlling one microorganism will not necessarily have a similar effect on the other. For example, hard freezing is likely to be more effective against Campylobacter than Salmonella. On the other hand, vaccine development for controlling Salmonella in flocks is clearly in advance of that for controlling Campylobacter.

Comment: The poultry industry association said that FSIS has recommended several interventions that the industry has sought but that are still awaiting review or approval by FSIS. According to the poultry industry association, the Agency should consider an expedited review and approval process.

Response: The Agency does not have a backlog of new technology submissions. The Agency reviews a new technology to determine whether it may express its “non-disapproval” for use of the technology. The technology should be safe to use, compliant with pertinent regulations, not interfere with inspection procedures, and help the establishment achieve the objectives of its HACCP system. FSIS has made available a guideline to assist the industry in preparing and submitting new-technology notifications and protocols to the Agency (See https://www.fsis.usda.gov/guidelines/2015-0012 ). By following the advice in the guideline, the submitter can assist the Agency in completing its review within a reasonable timeframe. FSIS Directive 7,120.1, on ”Safe and Suitable Ingredients,” is updated every month to incorporate newly approved entries, including new interventions (See https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/bab10e09-aefa-483b-8be8-809a1f051d4c/7120.1.pdf?MOD=AJPERES ).

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this notice on-line through the FSIS web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/federal-register.

FSIS also will make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their accounts.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six-month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established. A market analysis indicated that the proposed fees are both reasonable and acceptable for the type of recreation experience they provide.

Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by a Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.

Cabins will be available for overnight rental at $160 per night for the Burgdorf Guard Station, $100 per night for the Paddy Flat Guard Station, and $120 per night for a bunkhouse and $130 per night for a cabin at the Warren Guard Station. Seasons for each of these sites will be July 1 to September 30. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operation and maintenance, and market assessment. Funds from the rental will be used for the continued operation and maintenance of these sites.

People wanting to rent any of these sites will need to do so through Recreation.gov, at www.recreation.gov or by calling 1-877-444-6777. Recreation.gov charges an $8 fee for reservations.

On February 1, 2005, Commerce published the AD order on shrimp from Vietnam. 1 In the original investigation, we selected Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation as a mandatory respondent and granted it a separate rate. 2 Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation's separate rate status has not changed in subsequent administrative reviews of the Order. Most recently, in the administrative review covering the period February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018, we assigned Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation a separate rate, as a non-individually examined exporter under review. 3

On June 2, 2021, Camimex Group Joint Stock Company requested that, pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce conduct a CCR of the Order to confirm that Camimex Group Joint Stock Company is the successor-in-interest to Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation and, accordingly, to assign it the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. 4 In its request, Camimex Group Joint Stock Company stated that it undertook a legal name change from Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation, but the company is, otherwise, unchanged with regard to the factors to be examined. 5 No interested parties filed comments opposing the CCR request.

The merchandise subject to the Order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp. The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written product description, provided in the Appendix, remains dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216, Commerce will conduct a CCR upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an AD order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. The information submitted by Camimex Group Joint Stock Company supporting its claim that it is the successor-in-interest to Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation, demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant such a review. 6 Therefore, in accordance with 751(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), we are initiating a CCR based on the information contained in the CCR Request. Section 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of Commerce's regulations permits Commerce to combine the notice of initiation of a CCR and the notice of preliminary results if Commerce concludes that expedited action is warranted. In this instance, because the record contains information necessary to make a preliminary finding, we find that expedited action is warranted and have combined the notice of initiation and the notice of preliminary results. 7

In making a successor-in-interest determination, Commerce examines several factors, including, but not limited to, changes in the following: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. 8 While no single factor, or combination of factors, will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, generally, Commerce will consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if the new company's resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. 9 Thus, if the record evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the predecessor company, Commerce may assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. 10

In its CCR Request, Camimex Group Joint Stock Company provided information to demonstrate that it is the successor-in-interest to Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation. We have reviewed the information provided to determine whether there were changes in management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base.

With respect to management prior to and following the name change, Camimex Group Joint Stock Company demonstrated that it has the same management team, including the chairman and members of the board, as Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation. 11 Additionally, Camimex Group Joint Stock Company provided evidence that its organizational structure is identical to that of predecessor Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation. 12 Furthermore, Camimex Group Joint Stock Company provided evidence that its production facilities and contents therein and those of predecessor Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation are unchanged; Camimex Group Joint Stock Company retained the same address as Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation. 13

Camimex Group Joint Stock Company also demonstrated that it continues to source finished product from its affiliated subsidiary, Camimex Seafood Company Ltd. (the producer of subject merchandise), which Camimex Group Joint Stock Company, in turn, resells to foreign and domestic markets. This is unchanged from the producer/seller relationship between subsidiary producer, Camimex Seafood Company Ltd. and predecessor Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation. 14 With regard to customer base, in its CCR Request, Camimex Group Joint Stock Company provided a letter sent to customers and partners notifying them of the company's name change, thereby demonstrating that it retained the predecessor company's customers. 15

Therefore, given the continuity noted above, and consistent with our practice, 16 we preliminarily determine that no significant changes occurred with respect to Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation's management, production facilities, suppliers, or customer base as a result of the name change to Camimex Group Joint Stock Company. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216, we preliminarily determine that Camimex Group Joint Stock Company is the successor-in-interest to Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation. Record evidence demonstrates that Camimex Group Joint Stock Company operates as the same business entity as Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation with respect to subject merchandise, as discussed above. As such, Camimex Group Joint Stock Company is entitled to Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation's cash deposit rate with respect to entries of subject merchandise.

Should our final results remain unchanged from these preliminary results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assign entries of subject merchandise exported by Camimex Group Joint Stock Company the AD cash deposit rate applicable to Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation. Commerce will issue its final results of the review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). 17 Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 18 All comments are to be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and must also be served on interested parties. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day it is due. 19 Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 20

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), Commerce will issue the final results of this CCR no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days of publication of these preliminary results, if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b) and 351.221(c)(3)(ii).

On May 17, 2021, Commerce published its affirmative final determination in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of chassis from China. 1 On July 1, 2021, the ITC notified Commerce of its affirmative final determination that, pursuant to sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of subject merchandise from China that are sold in the United States at LTFV. 2

The products covered by the order are certain chassis and subassemblies thereof from China. For a full description of the scope of this order, see the appendix of this notice.

On July 1, 2021, in accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of chassis from China that are sold in the United States at LTFV. 3 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing this AD order. Because the ITC determined that imports of chassis from China are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

Therefore, in accordance with sections 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise for all relevant entries of chassis from China. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of chassis from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 4, 2021, the date of publication of the AD Preliminary Determination, but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before the publication of the ITC's final injury determination under section 735(b) of the Act, as further described in the “Provisional Measures” section of this notice. 4

Except as noted in the “Provisional Measures” section of this notice, in accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of chassis from China. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the table below, adjusted by the export subsidy offset. 5 Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP must require, at the same time as importers would deposit estimated normal customs duties on subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the rates listed in the table below.

Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Commerce published the AD Preliminary Determination in this investigation on March 4, 2021.

The provisional measures period, beginning on the date of publication of the AD Preliminary Determination, ends on July 1, 2021. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of chassis from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after July 1, 2021, the final day on which the provisional measures were in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register .

This notice constitutes the AD order with respect to chassis from China pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

This order is published in accordance with sections 736(a) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

On September 20, 2016, we published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty (AD) order on CR steel from the United Kingdom. 1 On September 1, 2020, we published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order. 2 On October 30, 2020, based on timely requests for an administrative review, we initiated an administrative review of one company, Liberty. 3 On May 17, 2021, we extended the preliminary results by 30 days, to no later than July 2, 2021. 4

The products covered by the antidumping duty Order are CR steel products. A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 5

Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice.

We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for Liberty for the period September 1, 2019, through August 31, 2019:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed for the preliminary results of this administrative review to parties within five days after public announcement or publication of the preliminary results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Interested parties will be notified of the timeline for the submission of such case briefs and written comments at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs. 6 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS  7 and must be served on interested parties. 8

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Commerce has modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice. 9 An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 10

Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

On November 23, 2020, AK Steel Corporation (the petitioners) requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(v), that Commerce conduct verification of the questionnaire responses submitted in this administrative review by Liberty. 11 Commerce is currently unable to conduct on-site verification of the information relied upon in making its final results of this administrative review. Accordingly, we intend to take additional steps in lieu of on-site verification to verify the information. Commerce will notify interested parties of any additional documentation or information required.

Upon issuing the final results, Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. 12 If the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.50 percent) in the final results of this review, we intend to calculate an importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 13 If the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, then we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise under review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Liberty for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the liquidation instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following deposit requirements for estimated antidumping duties will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this review for all shipments of CR steel from the United Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Liberty, subject to this review, will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by a company not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific cash deposit rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior completed review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation but the producer has been covered in a completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific cash deposit cash deposit rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 22.58 percent, 14 the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On June 11, 2018, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Italy. 1 On August 6, 2020, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Italy in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 2 This review covers one producer/exporter of subject merchandise, Dalmine S.p.A. (Dalmine). 3 For details regarding the events that occurred subsequent to the initiation of the review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 4

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce determined that it was not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the 245 days and extended these preliminary results by 120 days, until June 30, 2021. 5

The products covered by the Order are certain cold-drawn mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel products from Italy. For a full description of the scope, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. We calculated export price and constructed export price in accordance with section 772 of the Act. We calculated NV in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2019, through May 31, 2020:

Upon completion of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If Dalmine's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is not zero or de minimis. If Dalmine's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 6

In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Dalmine for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate in the original less-than-fair value (LTFV) investigation ( i.e., 47.87 percent)  7 if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. 8

Consistent with its recent notice, 9 Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the finals results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Dalmine in the final results of review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding in which they were reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original LTFV investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 47.87 percent, 10 the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results. 11 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs. 12 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. 13 Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 14

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system. 15 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 issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm the date and time of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. Parties are reminded that all briefs and hearing requests must be filed electronically using ACCESS and received successfully in their entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) (“the Act”) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325. OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(a), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the application in the Federal Register , identifying the applicant and each member and summarizing the proposed export conduct.

Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential.

An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21028, Washington, DC 20230.

Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the amended Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 99-14A05.”

Proposed Amendment: CAEA seeks to amend its Certificate by adding the following companies as Members of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)):

CAEA's proposed amendment of its Certificate would result in the following Members list:

In the Federal Register of May 17, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-10358, on page 26696, in the third column, fifth paragraph under DATES correct the caption to read: Applications for immediate consideration for membership must be received by the Office of SelectUSA by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Monday, August 2, 2021. The International Trade Administration will continue to accept applications under this notice for two years from the deadline to fill any vacancies.

On August 6, 2020, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on TRBs from China covering the period June 1, 2019, through May 31, 2020, with respect to 10 companies. 1 In November 2020, following timely withdrawal of their requests for review, we rescinded the review with respect to four companies. 2 This review now covers BRTEC Wheel Hub Bearing Co., Ltd. (BRTEC); C&U Group Shanghai Bearing Co., Ltd. (C&U Group); Hebei Xintai Bearing Forging Co., Ltd. (Hebei Xintai); Shanghai Tainai Bearing Co., Ltd., (Tainai); Xinchang Newsun Xintianlong Precision Bearing Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (XTL); and Zhejiang Jingli Bearing Technology Co. Ltd. (Jingli).

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included in the appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

Imports covered by the order are shipments of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from China; flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. These products are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.99.2300, 8708.99.4850, 8708.99.6890, 8708.99.8115, and 8708.99.8180. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 4

The C&U Group did not submit a separate rate application; therefore, it has failed to rebut de facto and de jure control by the Government of China. Commerce preliminarily determines that C&U Group is not eligible for a separate rate and is a part of the China-wide entity.

Under Commerce's current policy regarding the conditional review of the China-wide entity, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity in this review, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate is not subject to change ( i.e., 92.84 percent).

As discussed in the Bona Fides Analysis Memoranda, 5 Commerce preliminarily finds that the sales made by BRTEC and Jingli, which serve as the basis for our review of these companies, are not bona fide sales. Commerce reached this conclusion based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the reported sales. Further, given that the factual information used in our bona fides analysis of BRTEC's and Jingli's sales involves business proprietary information, see the Bona Fides Memoranda for a full discussion of the basis for our preliminary findings.

Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Tainai, the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated weighted-average dumping margin is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Tainai is the basis to determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the separate rate, non-examined companies, consistent with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act which provides for the determination of the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters in an investigation.

As indicated in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section below, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 36.75 percent applies to the two companies not selected for individual examination which are eligible for a separate rate ( i.e., Hebei Xintai and XTL). For further information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum at “Weighted-Average Dumping Margin for the Separate Rate Companies.”

Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2019, through May 31, 2020:

Commerce will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Interested parties will be notified of the deadlines for the submission of case briefs and written comments at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than seven days after the deadline date for case briefs. 6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this administrative review are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing. 7

All submissions must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established due date. Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 8

Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days after the date of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon issuance of the final results of the administrative review, Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. 9 Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

For each individually examined respondent in this review whose weighted-average dumping margin in the final results of review is not zero or de minimis ( i.e., less than 0.5 percent), Commerce intends to calculate importer-specific assessment rates for antidumping duties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 10 Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, Commerce intends to calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates by aggregating the amount of dumping calculated for all U.S. sales to the importer and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the merchandise sold to the importer. 11 Where the respondent did not report entered values, Commerce will calculate importer-specific assessment rates by dividing the amount of dumping for reviewed sales to the importer by the total quantity of those sales. Commerce will calculate an estimated ad valorem importer-specific assessment rate to determine whether the per-unit assessment rate is de minimis; however, Commerce will use the per-unit assessment rate where entered values were not reported. 12 Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation. Where either the respondent's weighted average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. 13

For the final results, if we continue to treat the C&U Group as part of China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 92.84 percent, the rate previously established for the China-wide entity, 14 to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were exported or produced by the C&U Group.

For the companies which are receiving a separate rate and which were not individually examined, their assessment rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin determined in the final results of this review.

For BRTEC and Jingli, if the review is rescinded for these two companies, then Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate, as entered, the entries associated with these two companies. In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated antidumping duties, where applicable.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above which have a separate rate the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then a cash deposit rate of zero will be established for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be equal to the exporter-specific weighted-average dumping margin published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the China-wide entity, 92.84 percent; and (4) for all exporters of subject merchandise that are not located in China and that are not eligible for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter(s) that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(l), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On December 28, 2020, Commerce published the Preliminary Results and invited interested parties to comment. 1 On February 3 and 12, 2021, the petitioners, 2 Vinh Hoan, the Hung Vuong Group (HVG), Colorado Boxed Beef Company (CBBC), QMC Foods, Inc. (QMC), Nam Viet Corporation (NAVICO), and Can Tho Import Export Joint Stock Company (CASEAMEX) submitted case and/or rebuttal briefs. 3

Following briefing, in response to comments filed by interested parties, on May 19, 2021, Commerce placed additional information obtained from U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on the record and solicited comments. 4 The petitioners and HVG filed comments regarding the information. 5

On April 7, 2021, we extended the deadline for issuance of these final results to June 25, 2021. 6 On June 8, 2021 we conducted a public hearing in this matter. 7

The products covered by the order are frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus (also known as Pangasius Pangasius ) and Pangasius Micronemus. For a complete description of the scope of this order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 9

We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by interested parties in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Attached to this notice in Appendix I is a list of the issues which parties raised. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html.

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made certain changes to Vinh Hoan's weighted-average dumping margin and revised the list of companies within the Vinh Hoan collapsed entity. For these final results, Commerce also updated the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to the non-individually-examined company receiving a separate rate, i.e., NAVICO. For a discussion of the above-referenced changes, see the “Changes Since the Preliminary Results” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In the Preliminary Results, Commerce preliminarily determined that 21 companies had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. 10 Following the publication of the Preliminary Results, we received no comments from interested parties regarding 19 of these companies, nor has any party submitted record evidence which would call our preliminary no shipment determination into question for them. Therefore, for these final results, we find that these 19 companies had no shipments during the POR.

With respect to the remaining two companies, HVG  11 and Thanh Binh Dong Thap One Member Company Limited (Thanh Binh), 12 we received comments from interested parties requesting that Commerce reevaluate our no shipment determination. With regard to HVG, Commerce continues to find that HVG had no shipments during the POR. 13 With regard to Thanh Binh, Commerce now finds that this company is part of the Vinh Hoan single entity. 14

For a list of the 20 companies for which we find “no shipments” for these final results, see Appendix II. Consistent with our practice, we will issue appropriate instructions to CBP consistent with the reseller policy. 15

We continue to find that the non-individually-examined exporter NAVICO and individually-examined respondent Vinh Hoan have demonstrated eligibility for separate rates. As noted below, we have assigned NAVICO the rate established for Vinh Hoan, in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

In the Preliminary Results, we denied Seafood Joint Stock Company No.4 Branch Dongtam Fisheries Processing Company (DOTASEAFOOD) a separate rate. 16 For the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we continue to find that DOTASEAFOOD is not eligible for a separate rate. 17 Thus, we find DOTASEAFOOD to be part of the Vietnam-wide entity.

In the Preliminary Results, Commerce found that certain additional companies for which a review was requested did not establish eligibility for a separate rate. 18 We have received no information since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides a basis for reconsidering this preliminary finding. Therefore, Commerce continues to find that these companies are part of the Vietnam-wide entity. 19

The weighted-average dumping margins for the final results of this administrative review are as follows:

We intend to disclose the calculations performed regarding these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Consistent with its recent notice, 21 Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication).

Because we calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of zero for Vinh Hoan, and applied that rate to NAVICO in the final results of this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Pursuant to Commerce's assessment practice, for entries of Vinh Hoan's merchandise that were not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by Vinh Hoan during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the Vietnam-wide entity rate.

Where we determined that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, any suspended entries that entered during the POR under that exporter's CBP case number will be liquidated at a rate of $2.39 per kilogram, the rate for the Vietnam-wide entity consistent with Commerce's reseller policy. 22

Likewise, for companies that were found to be ineligible for a separate rate, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise exported by such companies also at a rate of $2.39 per kilogram, the rate for the Vietnam-wide entity.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-averaged dumping margin established in the final results of review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese exporters not listed above that maintain their eligibility for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding in which they were reviewed; (3) for all Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be $2.39 per kilogram, the rate established for the Vietnam-wide entity; and (4) for all non-Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnamese exporters that supplied that non-Vietnamese exporter.

The deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i) of the Act.

Commerce initiated this review on August 6, 2020. 1 We selected two mandatory respondents in this review, Nagase and Showa Denko K.K. (Showa Denko). On October 8, 2020, Showa Denko withdrew from participation in this administrative review. 2 For a more detailed description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3

The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice.

The merchandise subject to the order is glycine. For a complete description of the scope of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 3

Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, Commerce is preliminarily relying upon facts otherwise available to assign an estimated weighted-average dumping margin to Showa Denko in this review because Showa Denko withheld necessary information that was requested by Commerce, thereby significantly impeding the conduct of the review. Further, Commerce preliminarily determines that Showa Denko failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information and, thus, Commerce is applying adverse facts available (AFA) in determining a weighted-average dumping margin for Showa Denko, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions regarding the application of AFA, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

We preliminarily determine that, for the period October 31, 2018, through May 31, 2020, the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:  4

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this administrative review within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs. 6 Commerce has modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice. 7 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 8

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 9

Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon completion of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If the weighted-average dumping margin for YGK/Nagase is not zero or de minimis in the final results of this review, we will calculate, for each company, an importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of such sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 10 If any of these companies' weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, or if an importer-specific assessment rate for one of these companies is zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regards to antidumping duties. 11 For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by any of these companies for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries. 12

Consistent with its recent notice, 13 Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., within 90 days of publication). The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise under review and for future cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties, where applicable.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for YGK/Nagase and Showa Denko listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which they were reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or in the investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be the all-others rate of 53.66 percent, the rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. 14 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

File No. 25696: The applicant proposes to study the habitat preference, species abundance, size frequencies, and fibropapillomatosis rates of sea turtles inhabiting inshore lagoons and nearshore reefs between Indian River and Miami-Dade Counties in southeastern Florida. Annually up to 200 green, 25 loggerhead, 10 Kemp's ridley and 10 hawksbill sea turtles would be counted and captured by hand, dip net, or tangle net. Captured turtles would be measured, weighed, temporarily marked, flipper tagged, and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagged, photographed, and skin and blood sampled prior to release. In addition, all loggerhead sea turtles would receive a sonic or satellite transmitter and all green sea turtles would undergo gastric lavage prior to release. A subset of greens would be transported to a local facility for imaging and/or receive a transmitter prior to their return to the wild. Another 1,350 green, 100 loggerhead, 75 hawksbill, and 20 Kemp's ridley sea turtles may be pursued during unsuccessful capture attempts annually. The permit would be valid for 10 years.

File No. 25716: The NEFSC proposes to continue studying sea turtles legally bycaught within commercial fisheries operating in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. The objective is to monitor the take of ESA listed sea turtle species in observed commercial fisheries and to collect data to help estimate total bycatch. Up to 50 loggerhead, 10 Kemp's ridley, 10 green, 20 leatherback, and 20 unidentified sea turtles would be photographed, measured, weighed, flipper tagged and PIT tagged, and skin biopsied prior to release annually. Carcasses, tissues or parts also may be salvaged from dead sea turtles. The permit would be valid for 5 years.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. ).

The applicant is requesting a permit to continue research activities to compare the energetic and cardiovascular responses and diving physiology of captive cetaceans and pinnipeds to determine key biological capabilities. A maximum of 4 dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ), 10 California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ), and 3 Hawaiian monk seals ( Neomonachus schauinslandi ) would be maintained and participate in the research at Long Marine Laboratory at any given time. Up to 60 bottlenose dolphins from the U.S. Navy, and up to 10 Hawaiian monk seals and 1 non-releasable Cook Inlet beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ) at other permitted facilities may also participate in the research at their respective facilities.

Other species in rehabilitation status may also be added opportunistically and transported to Long Marine Laboratory for research purposes (up to 10 species per year with less than 6 animals onsite at a time). Typical rehabilitation species are bottlenose dolphins, harbor porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ), Guadalupe fur seals ( Arctocephalus townsendi ), and Northern fur seals ( Callorhinus ursinus ), among others.

Research methods include training for voluntary participation to the maximum extent feasible to (1) assess body condition and morphometrics, (2) measure metabolic rate, (3) sample blood, (4) attach instruments ( e.g., ECG/accelerometer), (5) monitor tissue blood flow via a portable near-infrared spectroscopy, heat flux tags, and ultrasound, (6) measure heat flow, and skin or body temperature (see application for details by method). In addition, receipt, import, and export activities are requested for marine mammal parts from up to 140 individuals per taxon group (pinniped and cetacean) world-wide. The permit is requested for the maximum duration of 5 years.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

The consumer financial marketplace saw significant impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic beginning around March 2020. The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau) adapted its work by, among other things, focusing approximately half of its supervisory activities on prioritized assessments (PAs) starting in May 2020. PAs were designed to obtain real-time information from a broad group of supervised entities that operate in markets posing elevated risk of consumer harm due to pandemic-related issues. The Bureau analyzed pandemic-related market developments to determine which markets were most likely to pose risk to consumers. Observations from the Bureau's PA work were detailed in a special edition of Supervisory Highlights, Issue 23. 1

This issue of Supervisory Highlights covers findings from the other supervisory work the Bureau has engaged in since its last regular edition, Issue 22. 2 The findings included in this report cover examinations in the areas of auto servicing, consumer reporting, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, mortgage origination, mortgage servicing, private education loan origination, payday lending, and student loan servicing that were completed from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. To maintain the anonymity of the supervised institutions discussed in this edition of Supervisory Highlights, references to institutions generally are in the plural and the related findings pertain to one or more institutions unless otherwise noted.

The information contained in Supervisory Highlights is disseminated to help institutions and the general public better understand how the Bureau examines institutions for compliance with Federal consumer financial law. Supervisory Highlights summarizes existing requirements under the law and summarizes findings made in the course of exercising the Bureau's supervisory and enforcement authority. 3

The Bureau continues to examine auto loan servicing activities, primarily to assess whether entities have engaged in any unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices prohibited by the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). Examiners identified two unfair acts or practices related to lender-placed collateral protection insurance. Examiners also found unfair or deceptive acts or practices related to payment application. And examiners identified an unfair act or practice related to payoff amounts where consumers had ancillary product rebates due.

Auto finance contracts generally require consumers to maintain comprehensive and collision insurance that covers physical damage to the vehicle in order to protect the value of the collateral. If the consumer fails to maintain appropriate coverage, some contracts provide that servicers can purchase insurance for the vehicle, often called collateral protection insurance (CPI). CPI policies only cover damage to the vehicle. Charges for CPI policies are added to consumers' accounts and paid on a monthly basis. Servicers generally use electronic databases to monitor whether consumers are maintaining adequate insurance coverage. If the database suggests that a consumer is not maintaining adequate coverage, the servicer will send a notice requesting proof of insurance and stating that if the borrower does not provide proof of insurance, then a CPI policy will be purchased at the consumer's expense. When the CPI policy is purchased, the servicer sends the consumer another notice with information about the policy. If the consumer later proves that they had adequate insurance during any portion of the CPI policy period, the servicer will generally remove any CPI charges for that period. Examiners identified unfair and deceptive acts or practices related to placement and removal of CPI policies and charges.

Under the prohibition on unfair acts or practices in sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, an act or practice is unfair when: (1) It causes or is likely to cause substantial injury; (2) the injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers; and (3) the substantial injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.

Examiners found that servicers engaged in an unfair act or practice by charging consumers for unnecessary CPI.

Servicers caused consumers substantial injury by adding and maintaining charges for CPI premiums as a result of deficient processes when consumers had adequate insurance in place under their contracts. If a consumer has an adequate insurance policy that covers the vehicle, the CPI policy provides no benefit to the servicer or consumer. Placing or maintaining charges for CPI when consumers have adequate insurance causes consumers injury because consumers must either pay for the duplicative insurance or incur late fees or other consequences of delinquency. Additionally, some servicers caused additional injury because they applied any refunds of paid CPI charges to principal instead of returning those amounts directly to the consumer. Consumers could not reasonably avoid the injury for at least three reasons. First, in many instances, servicers sent notices regarding CPI charges to inaccurate addresses, so consumers had no notice that servicers planned to place CPI. Second, servicers did not have adequate procedures for processing insurance cards submitted by consumers as proof of insurance. Third, in many instances, servicers failed to process insurance documentation from consumers. The substantial injury to consumers was not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition, such as the cost of improving notices and improving document processing. Servicers have ceased issuing CPI policies.

Examiners found that servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices by collecting or attempting to collect CPI premiums after repossession even though no actual insurance protection was provided for those periods.

CPI automatically terminates on the date of repossession, per the terms of the contract, and consumers should not be charged after this date. Despite this, servicers charged consumers for CPI after repossession in four different circumstances. First, servicers failed to communicate the date of repossession to the CPI service provider due to system errors. Second, servicers used an incorrect formula to calculate the CPI charges that needed to be removed due to the repossession. Third, servicers' employees entered the wrong repossession date into their system of record, resulting in improper termination dates. Fourth, servicers charged consumers—who had a vehicle repossessed and subsequently reinstated the loan—for the days the vehicle was in the servicer's possession, despite the automatic termination of the policy on the date of repossession.

These errors caused consumers substantial injury because they paid amounts they did not owe or were subject to collection attempts for amounts they did not owe. This injury was not reasonably avoidable because consumers did not control the servicers' cancellation processes and did not have a reasonable way to determine that the charges were inaccurate. The substantial injury to consumers was not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. Servicers have ceased issuing CPI policies.

Examiners found that servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices by posting payments to the wrong account or by posting certain payments as principal-only payments instead of periodic installment payments, resulting in late fees and additional interest charges. Servicers engaged in two types of errors. 4 First, some payments were applied to the wrong loan account, despite the consumer providing their account information. Second, for some payment types, servicer employees applied the payment as a principal-only payment instead of a periodic payment. In both instances, consumers' accounts were marked as delinquent for the month they made the payment, resulting in late fees and additional interest. Servicers did not have a reliable method to detect the errors, and primarily relied on consumer complaints to identify misapplied payments. In some instances, even when consumers complained, the servicers did not provide refunds.

This conduct caused or was likely to cause substantial injury to consumers because the servicers misapplied payments, resulting in late fees and additional interest. Consumers could not reasonably avoid the injury because they had no control over the servicers' misapplication of their payments. Even if consumers contacted the servicers regarding the errors, late fees and interest had accrued. The injury was not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. For example, servicers could improve their procedures to reduce the error rate. In response to examiner findings, servicers remediated affected consumers and implemented new automated systems.

Under the prohibition against deceptive acts or practices in sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, an act or practice is deceptive when: (1) It misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer; (2) the consumer's interpretation is reasonable under the circumstances; and (3) the misleading act or practice is material.

Examiners found that servicers engaged in deceptive acts or practices by representing on their websites a specific payment application order, and subsequently applying payments in a different order. Specifically, servicers represented on their websites that payments would be applied to interest, then principal, then past due payments, before being applied to other charges, such as late fees. Instead, the servicers applied partial payments to late fees first, in contravention of the methodology disclosed on the website. As the result of applying payments to late fees first, servicers repossessed some consumers' vehicles.

The representation that payments would be applied to interest, then principal, then past due payments, and then other charges was likely to mislead consumers because the servicers actually applied payments to late fees first. It was reasonable for consumers under the circumstances to believe that the servicers' websites provided accurate information about payment allocation order. In some instances, the underlying contract provides the servicer the right to apply payments in any order. But consumers reasonably relied on the representations on servicers' websites regarding payment application. And the representation was material because it was likely to affect consumers' decisions about how much to pay. Servicers remediated impacted consumers and now use the disclosed payment application hierarchy.

Examiners found that servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices by accepting loan payoff amounts that included overcharges for optional products after incorrectly telling consumers that they owed this larger amount. 5

Consumers financed the purchase of the optional product by adding it to the loan amount of a vehicle purchase. The contracts provided that consumers or servicers could cancel the product at any time and receive a “pro-rata” refund less a cancellation fee. Servicers prepared payoff statements in response to consumers' requests that included a line listing credits for refunds from optional products and a total “payoff amount.” Servicers calculated this refund based on the actuarial value of the policies, instead of using the pro-rata calculation specified in the contract. In some instances, this resulted in payoff statements that listed a total amount due that was larger than the amount the consumer owed.

The conduct caused or was likely to cause substantial injury to consumers because servicers accepted money from consumers that the consumers did not actually owe. Consumers could not reasonably avoid the injury because they paid the servicers the amount they told them they owed. Consumers are not required to independently verify that servicers correctly calculated optional product refund amounts and therefore the injury could not be reasonably avoided. The injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. Servicers can update their systems to perform appropriate calculations without significant cost. Servicers have refunded overpayments to consumers and updated their systems to perform calculations that are consistent with the contract terms.

Entities that obtain or use consumer reports from consumer reporting companies (CRCs), 6 or that furnish information relating to consumers for inclusion in consumer reports, play a vital role in the consumer reporting process. They are subject to several requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)  7 and its implementing regulation, Regulation V. 8 These include the requirement to furnish data subject to the relevant accuracy and dispute handling requirements. In recent reviews, examiners found deficiencies in, among other things, CRCs' compliance with FCRA: (i) Accuracy requirements, (ii) security freeze requirements applicable only for nationwide CRCs as defined in FCRA section 603(p), 9 and (iii) requirements regarding ID theft block requests. Examiners also found deficiencies in furnisher compliance with FCRA and Regulation V accuracy and dispute investigation requirements.

The FCRA requires that, whenever a CRC “prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.”  10 In reviews of CRCs, examiners found that CRCs' accuracy procedures failed to comply with this obligation because the CRC continued to include information in consumer reports that was provided by unreliable furnishers. Specifically, the furnishers had responded to disputes in ways that suggested that the furnishers were no longer sources of reliable, verifiable information about consumers. For example, CRCs received furnisher dispute responses indicating that, for several months, furnishers failed to respond to all or nearly all disputes, deleted all or nearly all tradelines disputed by consumers, or verified as accurate all or nearly all tradelines disputed by consumers. Despite observing this dispute response behavior by these furnishers, CRCs continued to include information from these furnishers. After identification of these issues, CRCs were directed to revise their accuracy procedures to identify and take corrective action regarding data from furnishers whose dispute response behavior indicates the furnisher is not a source of reliable, verifiable information about consumers.

The FCRA requires that nationwide CRCs must, free of charge, place a security freeze on a consumer's report “upon receiving a direct request from a consumer” and upon “receiving proper identification from the consumer. . . .”  11 The security freeze must be placed not later than “(ii) in the case of a request that is by mail, 3 business days after receiving the request directly from the consumer.”  12 In reviews of nationwide CRCs, examiners found that CRCs failed to place security freezes within three business days after receiving the request by mail. One root cause was determined to be inadequate training, and to address that root cause, targeted training to appropriate staff regarding the requirements and timing of placing security freezes was provided.

The FCRA requires that CRCs must “block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft. . . .”  13 The block must be made “not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt” of a qualifying block request. 14 In reviews of CRCs, examiners found that CRCs failed to place ID theft blocks within four business days of receipt of qualifying block requests. The block requests were delayed due to a backlog that the CRCs subsequently resolved. In response to these issues, the CRCs updated policies and procedures to ensure the timely processing and blocking of information identified in ID theft block requests.

The FCRA requires that persons who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnish information to CRCs about that person's transactions or experiences with consumers must, upon determining that information furnished to CRCs is not complete or accurate, “promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination.” The furnisher must then provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate.”  15

In a review of auto loan furnishers, examiners found that furnishers failed to send updating or correcting information to CRCs after making a determination that information furnishers had reported was no longer accurate. For example, examiners found that after consumers had applied for an auto loan but later communicated they no longer wanted to proceed with the loan, and the furnisher had removed the loan from its system of record, the furnisher continued to furnish information to CRCs as though the loans had been issued rather than cancelled. Furnishers attributed the errors to failures by a service provider to follow furnisher's procedures. Following identification of these issues furnishers implemented a new process that reconciles loan cancellations and removals of loans from the system of record with responsive corrections to CRCs.

Regulation V requires that, after receiving a direct dispute notice from a consumer, a furnisher must “[c]onduct a reasonable investigation with respect to the disputed information. . . . 16 Further, Regulation V provides that a “furnisher is not required to investigate a direct dispute if the furnisher has reasonably determined that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant.”  17 However, if a furnisher determines that a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, the furnisher must “notify the consumer of the determination not later than five business days after making the determination, by mail or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the furnisher.”  18 The notice must “include the reasons for such determination and identify any information required to investigate the disputed information, which notice may consist of a standardized form describing the general nature of such information.”  19

In reviews of mortgage furnishers, examiners found that furnishers failed to conduct reasonable investigations of direct disputes. Furnishers' dispute procedures instructed their direct dispute investigating agents to verify that consumers' signatures matched the signature on file and, if they did not match, send a letter to the borrower stating that the information provided in the dispute did not match the furnishers' records. Examiners found that furnishers' agents had sent such letters to consumers whose dispute letters included only a typed name or electronic image of a signature. Furnishers' agents did so without: Conducting an investigation of such disputes, otherwise reasonably determining that such disputes were frivolous or irrelevant, or providing any qualifying frivolous or irrelevant notices to consumers. After identification of these issues, furnishers updated their policies and procedures to define circumstances when disputes should reasonably be deemed frivolous because they appear to have originated from credit repair organizations; furnishers also created templates to send to consumers whose disputes they deemed frivolous. Further, furnishers provided training to agents on the new policies and procedures and the new letter templates.

The Bureau has the supervisory authority to examine certain entities that engage in consumer debt collection activities, including nonbanks that are larger participants in the consumer debt collection market and nonbanks that are service providers to certain covered persons. Recent examinations of larger participant debt collectors identified violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Section 805(a)(3) of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from communicating with a consumer in connection with the collection of a debt at the consumer's workplace if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits such communications. 20 Examiners determined that debt collectors communicated with consumers at their workplaces after they knew or should have known that the consumers' employers prohibit such communications, in violation of section 805(a)(3). In response to these findings, the collectors are improving their training and monitoring.

In addition, section 805(a) of the FDCPA restricts the circumstances under which a debt collector may contact a consumer. 21 Specifically, section 805(a)(1) prohibits a debt collector from communicating with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt at a time or place that the collector knows or should know is inconvenient to the consumer. 22 Examiners found that debt collectors communicated with consumers at their places of employment during work hours when the debt collectors knew or should have known that calls during work hours were inconvenient to the consumers, in violation of section 805(a)(1). For example, one debt collector called a consumer during work hours at a time the consumer had previously specified as inconvenient. Another debt collector called a consumer on a workplace phone number after being informed by the consumer that calls to the workplace number were inconvenient. In response to these findings, the collectors are improving their training and monitoring.

Section 805(b) of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from communicating in connection with the collection of a debt with any person other than the consumer and certain other parties. 23 Exceptions to this prohibition are set out in sections 804 and 805(b). 24

Examiners found that debt collectors communicated with third parties in violation of section 805(b). The communications were not within an exception listed in sections 804 or 805(b). This violation of the FDCPA resulted from inadequate compliance controls to verify right-party contact during efforts to locate the consumer. In several instances, the third party had a name similar to the consumer's name. In response to this finding, the collectors are improving various aspects of their compliance management systems (CMS).

In addition, section 804(1) of the FDCPA states that, when communicating with third parties for the purpose of acquiring location information for the consumer, a debt collector may only disclose the name of their employer if expressly requested. 25 Examiners observed that debt collectors identified their employers when communicating with third parties who had not expressly requested it, in violation of section 804(1). In response to these findings, the collectors are improving their training and monitoring.

Section 805(c) of the FDCPA provides that if a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer wishes the collector to cease further communication or that the consumer refuses to pay the debt, the collector must cease further communication with the consumer, with certain exceptions. 26 Examiners found that a consumer used a model form to mail a written statement to a debt collector stating that the debt was the result of identity theft, requesting that the collector cease further communication, and requesting that the collector provide confirmation along with information concerning the disputed account. After receiving this form, the collector continued attempts to collect the debt from the consumer in violation of FDCPA section 805(c). These attempts were not efforts to respond to the consumer's request for information about the identity theft claim. In response to these findings, the collector is improving board and management oversight and monitoring.

Section 806 of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from engaging in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. 27 Examiners found when consumers stated they were unable to make or complete payment arrangements, debt collectors emphasized two or more times to each of the consumers that the collector would place a note in the account system stating that the consumer was refusing to make a payment. The natural consequence of these inaccurate statements was to harass or oppress the consumers, in violation of section 806. In response to these finding, the collectors are improving their training and monitoring.

Section 807 of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 28 Section 807(8) specifically prohibits communicating or threatening to communicate credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed. 29 Examiners found that debt collectors knew or should have known that debts were disputed, resulted from identity theft, and were not owed by the relevant consumers. Nonetheless, in these circumstances, the collectors threatened to report to CRCs that the consumer owed the debt if it was not paid. The collectors then reported the debt to CRCs and failed to report that the consumer disputed the debt. This course of action violated section 807(8) of the FDCPA. In response to these finding, the collectors are improving their training.

Section 807(10) of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt or obtain information concerning a consumer. 30

Examiners found that several debt collectors falsely represented to consumers the impact that paying off their debts would have on their credit profiles, in violation of section 807(10). 31 For example, one debt collector told a consumer the debt would no longer “impact” her credit profile once paid, which was false. Another debt collector told a consumer that making a payment would help to “fix” the consumer's credit. In response to this finding, the collectors are improving various aspects of their CMS.

Section 808 of the FDCPA states that a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. 32 Section 808(1) specifically designates “the collection of any amount . . . unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law” as an unfair practice. 33 Examiners found that debt collectors entered inaccurate information regarding State interest rate caps into an automated system, resulting in some consumers being overcharged, in violation of section 808(1). In response to these findings, the collectors remediated impacted consumers and are improving their training and monitoring.

Section 808 of the FDCPA states that a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. 34 Examiners found that debt collectors sent administrative wage garnishment orders to consumers' employers by mistake despite having received completed applications from the consumers to consolidate the debt, which should have stopped the wage garnishment process based on standard procedures, in violation of section 808. In response to these findings, the collectors are improving their training and monitoring.

Section 809(a) of the FDCPA requires a debt collector to send a notice containing certain information (commonly called a “validation notice”) to the consumer within five days after the initial communication with the consumer, with certain exceptions. 35 Examiners found that debt collectors violated section 809(a) by sending validation notices that lacked some of the required information. Examiners found that the issue resulted from template changes that had not been reviewed by compliance personnel. In response to these findings, the collectors are improving their board and management oversight of new letter templates.

The CFPB continues its examinations of financial institutions for compliance with Regulation E, 36 which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). 37 The CFPB also examines for compliance with other relevant statutes and regulations, including Regulation DD, 38 which implements the Truth in Savings Act, 39 and the Dodd-Frank Act's prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAPs). 40

EFTA establishes a legal framework for the offering and use of electronic fund transfer (EFT) services. One of the primary objectives of the EFTA and its implementing regulation, Regulation E, is to protect consumers engaging in EFTs.

Supervision continues to find violations of EFTA and Regulation E that it previously discussed in the Fall 2014, Summer 2017, and Summer 2020 editions of Supervisory Highlights, respectively. These violations include:

• Requiring written confirmation of an oral notice of error before investigating;

• Requiring consumers to contact merchants about alleged unauthorized transactions before investigating;

• Relying on incorrect dates to assess the timeliness of an EFT error notice;

• Failing to provide an explanation or an accurate explanation of investigation results when determining no error or a different error occurred; and

• Failing to include in the error investigation report a statement regarding a consumer's right to obtain the documentation that an institution relied on in its error investigation.

An effective compliance strategy for institutions includes evaluation of their practices, including through transaction testing, monitoring, and review of their policies and procedures. This will help ensure compliance with applicable Federal consumer financial laws and stop any practices that were previously identified as violations. Examples of other violations found by examiners are described below.

Under Regulation E, a financial institution generally must complete its investigation and determine whether an error occurred within 10 business days of receiving a notice of error. 41 But an institution may take up to 45 days  42 to complete its investigation if it, among other things, provisionally credits the alleged error amount (including interest where applicable) to the consumer's account within 10 business days of receiving the error notice. 43 The institution need not issue a provisional credit if it requires, but does not receive, written confirmation of an oral notice of error within 10 business days. 44 When institutions issue provisional credits, they must inform the consumer of the amount and date the credit was applied to the account within two business days after provisionally crediting the account. 45 Within three business days of completing an error investigation, the financial institution must report the results to the consumer, including, if applicable, notice that a provisional credit has been made final. 46

If an institution debits a provisional credit from a consumer's account because it determines that no error occurred or that an error occurred in a manner or amount different from that described by the consumer, it must, among other things, notify consumers of the debiting. 47 The notice must State the date and amount of the debit and that the financial institution will honor checks, drafts, or similar instruments payable to third parties and preauthorized EFTs from the consumer's account for five business days after the notification. 48 As an alternative to this notice, which is specified in the text of Regulation E, the associated Staff Commentary provides that a financial institution may notify the consumer that the consumer's account will be debited five business days from the transmittal of the notification and specify the calendar date on which the debiting will occur. 49

Examiners found that numerous institutions violated Regulation E's provisional credit requirements, including as follows:

• Failing to provide provisional credits, despite not completing error investigations within 10 business days of notice of an error;

• Failing to provide provisional credits to consumers who timely provided required written confirmation of oral error notices;

• Posting the provisional credit to the wrong account, by failing to ensure that the ownership of the credited account matched the account that should have received the credit;

• Excluding interest from the provisional credit;

• Using notification templates that either had a timeframe to disclose when a provisional credit would be applied instead of a specific date or lacked any date information;

• Failing to provide notice that a provisional credit had been made final due to process weakness, including: (i) An unsuccessful attempt to combine the letter informing consumers of a provisional credit with the letter notifying them the credit would be final, and (ii) a process deficiency in which both the financial institution and the merchant of the disputed charge issued a simultaneous credit; and

• Sending consumers notices that provisional credits would be reversed, but excluding either the exact date a credit was or would be debited or notice that it would honor checks, drafts, or similar instruments payable to third parties and preauthorized transfers from the customer's account for five business days after the notification, or excluding both.

The institutions took a variety of corrective actions to remedy these violations, including making improvements to compliance management systems and providing remediation to consumers.

If a financial institution is unable to complete its investigation within 10 business days, 12 CFR 1005.11(c)(2) provides that an institution may take up to 45 days from receipt of the notice of error to investigate and determine whether an error occurred provided it, among other things, provisionally credits the consumer's account as discussed above. If the alleged error involves an EFT that was not initiated within a state, resulted from a point-of-sale debit card transaction, or occurred within 30 days after the first deposit to the account was made, the institution may take up to 90 days to investigate and determine whether an error occurred, provided it otherwise complied with the requirements of 12 CFR 1005.11(c)(2). 50

Examiners found that financial institutions violated Regulation E by failing to complete investigations and make a determination within 45 days from receipt of the notice of error and within 90 days from receipt of the notice of error for point-of-sale debit transactions, respectively, after providing provisional credit within 10 business days of the error notice. In each instance, the financial institutions exceeded the applicable timelines.

In response to examiners' findings, the financial institutions updated their training to ensure that employees were properly trained on the applicable Regulation E timelines and modified certain policies and procedures. 51

All error investigations “must be reasonable.”  52 When it applies, Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.11(c)(4), requires that a financial institution in investigating an error must conduct, at a minimum, a “review of its own records regarding [the] alleged error.”  53 This review must include at least “any relevant information within the institution's own records.”  54

Examiners found that some financial institutions violated Regulation E by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation and instead denied claims solely because the consumers had previously conducted business with a merchant. One institution, upon seeing that a consumer was challenging a charge from a merchant with whom the consumer had prior transactions, closed error investigations without completing them, and instead instructed consumers to first direct the claim to the merchant that made the charge.

In response to examiners' findings, the financial institutions updated their training to ensure that employees were properly trained on the applicable Regulation E investigation requirements and enhanced certain policies and procedures and monitoring to ensure investigations are completed properly. In addition, the financial institutions identified and remediated all consumers whose Regulation E error claims were wrongly denied based upon pre-existing relationships with the merchant and whose error resolution claims were not investigated as required.

When a financial institution determines an alleged error did occur, commentary to Regulation E highlights “it must correct the error . . . including, where applicable, the crediting of interest and the refunding of any fees imposed by the institution.”  55

Examiners determined that some financial institutions failed to refund associated fees and credit interest when correcting an error. One such institution implemented automated processes, as well as policy updates and enhanced training to address the issue. At another institution, employees failed to provide proper credits and refunds although it was required by the institution's procedures. This failure indicated a lack of proper training, which the institution was asked to enhance. Both institutions stated that they would or had remediated impacted consumers.

For another institution, this violation occurred because the institution's ACH teams reviewed issues on a transaction-by-transaction basis, which did not allow it to evaluate the impact of the issue at the account or claim level. This institution reorganized its staff to evaluate consumer accounts on an individual or account level, conducted a lookback to remediate impacted consumers, and updated policies to ensure that fees were credited to the accounts.

Similarly, an organizational issue caused the problem at another institution. This institution used multiple divisions to investigate and correct errors, depending on the type of error alleged. Differing policies and procedures between divisions created various levels of authority for error resolution. Because of these differences, the institution failed to refund the fees as is required by the Regulation E commentary, despite determining the alleged error occurred. The institution rectified this situation by reviewing and consolidating the role of error investigation into one division to ensure all Regulation E errors were consistently processed and committed to remediate harmed consumers.

The CFPB continues to examine financial institutions' overdraft opt-in and disclosure practices for compliance with relevant statutes and regulations, including Regulation E, 56 Regulation DD, 57 which implements the Truth in Savings Act, 58 and the Dodd-Frank Act's prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. 59

Many institutions provide various overdraft products that charge fees for transactions that overdraw accounts. Regulation E prohibits financial institutions from charging overdraft fees on ATM and one-time debit card transactions unless consumers affirmatively opt in to overdraft service. 60 Among other things, Regulation E requires that institutions provide consumers “a reasonable opportunity for the consumer to affirmatively consent, or opt in, to the service for ATM and one-time debit card transactions.”  61 Moreover, institutions must provide consumers “with confirmation of the consumer's consent in writing, or if the consumer agrees, electronically, which includes a statement informing the consumer of the right to revoke such consent.”  62 Regulation E requires institutions to maintain evidence of compliance for a period of not less than two years from the date action is required to be taken or disclosures are required to be given. 63

Examiners identified a number of violations in connection with these overdraft opt-in requirements, including the following:

• Failing to obtain affirmative consent from consumers before charging them overdraft fees for ATM and one-time debit card transactions, due to coding errors, systems mergers, or inadequate phone-based opt-in procedures. These institutions provided remediation to consumers assessed these overdraft fees without their authorization and ceased charging overdraft fees to consumers who did not opt in.

• Failing to advise consumers who opted-in to overdraft online of their right to revoke their opt-in to ATM and one-time debit overdraft services as part of the opt-in confirmation notice. Supervision issued a Matter Requiring Attention (MRA) regarding the need for a notice that included the right to revoke and also remediation for consumers impacted by the previous deficient notice.

• Failing to retain evidence of having obtained affirmative consent from consumers to opt into overdraft services for ATM and one-time debit card transactions, including due to process deficiencies for in-branch opt-in and general document retention failures. The institutions were directed to rectify their procedures.

• Failing to provide consumers overdraft opt-in notices that were substantially similar to the Model Form A-9 disclosure, in violation of Regulation E. 64 Institutions corrected their notices.

Supervision identified violations of Regulation DD requirements related to overdraft services as well, including:

• Disclosing to consumers, through automated systems, available account balance amounts that included discretionary overdraft credit that the bank potentially could provide;  65 and

• Failing to correctly disclose on periodic statements the amount of overdraft fees incurred by consumers during a statement cycle. 66

The institutions implemented or proposed policy and procedure changes to address the violations.

The Bureau's fair lending supervision program assesses compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)  67 and its implementing regulation, Regulation B, 68 as well as the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)  69 and its implementing regulation, Regulation C, 70 at banks and nonbanks over which the Bureau has supervisory authority. Examiners found that supervised institutions engaged in violations of HMDA and Regulation C, and ECOA and Regulation B.

The Bureau continues to examine mortgage originators, including bank and nonbank financial institutions, for compliance with HMDA and its implementing regulation, Regulation C. Regulation C requires financial institutions to collect and report data regarding applications for covered loans that they receive, covered loans that they originate, and covered loans that they purchase each calendar year. 71 Recent examinations identified HMDA violations due to inaccuracy of HMDA data submitted by financial institutions, including fields newly added to the HMDA loan application register (LAR) beginning in 2018. In October 2015, the CFPB issued a final rule (2015 HMDA Rule) that included changes to the types of institutions that are subject to Regulation C; the types of transactions subject to Regulation C; the specific information that covered institutions are required to collect, record, and report; and processes for reporting and disclosing data. 72 For HMDA data collected on or after January 1, 2018, certain covered institutions were required to collect, record, and report data points newly added or modified by the 2015 HMDA Rule.

Specifically, the 2015 HMDA Rule added new data points for Applicant or Borrower Age, Credit Score, Automated Underwriting System information, Unique Loan Identifier, Property Value, Application Channel, Points and Fees, Borrower-paid Origination Charges, Discount Points, Lender Credits, Loan Term, Prepayment Penalty, Non-amortizing Loan Features, Interest Rate, and Loan Originator Identifier as well as other data points. The 2015 HMDA Rule also modified several existing data points. 73 Most of the additions and modifications to the HMDA LAR fields within the 2015 HMDA rule became effective January 1, 2018. Examinations evaluating data reported in 2018 and 2019 were the first examinations in which the Bureau reviewed the accuracy of the data in HMDA LAR fields added by the 2015 HMDA Rule.

The CFPB's HMDA examinations include transaction testing of a sample of the institution's HMDA LAR and review of its CMS as it relates to HMDA. Transaction testing consists of comparing a sample of the institution's HMDA LAR to source documents from the loan files corresponding to each LAR entry (LAR line or row of the data) and assessing whether or not the LAR entry is accurate. When errors are identified, examiners evaluate the number of errors relative to the resubmission threshold, which is the data accuracy standard used in the CFPB's examinations. Specifically, the HMDA interagency resubmission thresholds provide that in a LAR of more than 500 entries, when the total number of errors in any data field exceeds four, examiners should direct the institution to correct any such data field in the full HMDA LAR and resubmit its HMDA LARs with the corrected field(s). 74 These resubmission thresholds are included in the CFPB's HMDA examination procedures. 75

Examiners identified widespread errors within 2018 HMDA LARs of several covered financial institutions. To date, examiners have not identified widespread LAR errors within institutions' 2019 LARs. In several examinations, examiners identified errors that exceed the HMDA resubmission thresholds. In general, examiners identified more errors in data fields collected beginning in 2018 pursuant to the 2015 HMDA rule than for other fields. For example, the fields with the highest number of identified errors across several institutions were the newly required “Initially Payable to Your Institution” field and the “Debt-to-Income Ratio” field.

In several examinations in which examiners identified numerous errors, the root causes of the HMDA violations were deficiencies in the institutions' CMS. The CMS deficiencies included the institutions' board and management oversight, policies and procedures, training, monitoring and audit, and the institutions' service provider oversight.

Many of the widespread or systemic errors related to problems within the institutions' data mapping—the data transfers from operations-based systems, such as loan origination systems, to data storage systems that populate the HMDA LARs. For example:

• Examiners determined that numerous errors within the Credit Scoring model fields were caused by data transfer deficiencies in which institutions extracted data from credit scoring models then transferred them to systems that reported inaccurate codes and descriptions of the credit scores.

• Examiners identified errors within the Rate Spread field and observed that these errors occurred due to data mapping or data transfer deficiencies. Institutions allowed erroneous software updates within their loan processing systems to result in inaccurate Rate Spread values reported on their HMDA LARs. Examiners determined that service provider oversight deficiencies resulted in institutions' failure to correct the erroneous data transfers.

• Examiners identified inaccurate values for the debt-to-income ratio. The institutions acknowledged the errors and stated the fields reported incorrectly were the result of a change made to the programming of their loan origination system.

Many of the widespread or systemic errors were caused by misinterpretation of Regulation C requirements or the institution's specific policy. For example:

• Examiners determined that employees at one institution misinterpreted the institution's policies and procedures for calculating the ages of applicants and co-applicants. Examiners determined that these errors were caused by deficiencies in the institution's monitoring and audit function.

• Examiners determined that an institution's senior management misinterpreted HMDA and Regulation C, concluding erroneously that the Origination Charges, Discount Points, and/or Lender Credits fields should be reported as “Not applicable.” For example, examiners observed Origination Charges, displayed as “zero” within source documentation, inaccurately reported as “Not applicable.” The Origination Charges field should be entered, in dollars for the total of all itemized amounts that are designated borrower-paid at or before closing. If the total is zero, enter 0. Enter “NA” if the requirement to report origination charges does not apply to the covered loan or application that the institution is reporting.

In response to widespread HMDA LAR inaccuracies identified during examinations, institutions will review, correct, and resubmit their HMDA LAR. 76 Some institutions have already resubmitted their HMDA LARs.

In addition, institutions will enhance monitoring practices to ensure they are completed timely and appropriately identify and measure HMDA risk. Some institutions will develop and implement an effective HMDA monitoring program that prevents, detects, and corrects violations of HMDA and Regulation C, and ensures appropriate corrective actions are taken.

Some institutions will make improvements to CMS components that were the cause of errors, including through (1) implementation of policies, procedures and/or a plan that ensures that fields that had errors are reported accurately; (2) improvements to board and management oversight to ensure that the board and management promptly responds to CMS deficiencies and violations of Regulation C; and (3) improvements to their HMDA training program regarding collecting and recording data for the HMDA LAR, including ensuring it is specifically tailored to staff with responsibilities relating to HMDA.

Regulation B prohibits discouragement of “applicants or prospective applicants”. Specifically, it states: “A creditor shall not make any oral or written statement, in advertising or otherwise, to applicants or prospective applicants that would discourage on a prohibited basis a reasonable person from making or pursuing an application.”  77 The Official Interpretations of Regulation B also explain that this prohibition “covers acts or practices directed at prospective applicants that could discourage a reasonable person, on a prohibited basis, from applying for credit.”  78

In the course of conducting supervisory activity, examiners observed that a lender violated ECOA and Regulation B by engaging in acts or practices directed at prospective applicants that would have discouraged reasonable people in minority neighborhoods in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) from applying for credit.

Initial statistical analysis of the HMDA data and U.S. census data showed that the lender received significantly fewer applications from majority-minority and high-minority neighborhoods relative to other peer lenders in the MSA, which resulted in the prioritization of the institution for a redlining examination. The examination teams' subsequent, in-depth analyses, including general and refined peer analyses, confirmed these differences relative to its peer lenders in the MSA. 79 Examiners identified evidence of communications directed at prospective applicants that would discourage reasonable persons on a prohibited basis from applying to the lender for a mortgage loan. First, the lender conducted a number of direct mail marketing campaigns that featured models, all of whom appeared to be non-Hispanic white. Second, the lender included headshots of its mortgage professionals in its open house marketing materials, and in almost all of these materials, the headshots showed only professionals who appeared to be non-Hispanic white. Third, the lender's office locations were nearly all concentrated in majority non-Hispanic white areas, as confirmed by the lender's website communicating where the offices are located. Each of these acts or practices is a form of communication directed at prospective applicants.

Also, the lender's direct marketing campaign and Multiple Listing Service (MLS) advertising was focused on majority-white areas in the MSA, which provided additional evidence of its intent to discourage on a prohibited basis. In addition, the examination team determined that the lender employed mostly non-Hispanic white mortgage loan officers and identified emails among mortgage loan officers containing racist and derogatory content. The lender plans to undertake remedial and corrective actions regarding this violation, which are under review by the Bureau.

Supervision assessed the mortgage origination operations of several supervised entities for compliance with applicable Federal consumer financial laws. Examinations of these entities identified violations of Regulation Z and deceptive acts or practices prohibited by the CFPA.

Regulation Z generally prohibits compensating mortgage loan originators in an amount that is based on the terms of a transaction. 80 Compensation is based on the term of a transaction if the objective facts and circumstances indicate that the compensation would have been different if a transaction term had been different. 81 In the preamble to the Bureau's 2013 Loan Originator Final Rule, the Bureau responded to questions from commenters about whether it was permissible to compensate differently based on product types, such as credit extended pursuant to government programs for low-to moderate-income borrowers. 82 As part of its response to these questions, the Bureau explained that it is not permissible to differentiate compensation based on credit product type, since products are simply a bundle of particular terms. 83

Examiners found that lenders' compensation policies specified lower compensation for originating a bond loan subject to requirements set forth by a State Housing Finance Agency (HFA), and that the lenders followed these policies. Examiners also found that lenders compensated loan originators by paying them more for originating construction loans than for other types of loans. Examiners determined that by compensating loan originators differently based on whether the loan was an HFA loan or construction loan, the lenders compensated loan originators based on the terms of the transaction because the compensation would have been different if the terms of the transaction had been different. As a result, each lender involved agreed to no longer compensate loan originators differently based on product type.

Where there is simultaneous purchase of lender and owner title insurance policies, Regulation Z requires creditors to disclose the lender's title insurance based on the amount of the premium, without any discount that might be available for the simultaneous purchase of an owner's title insurance policy. 84 Creditors are required to disclose the premium for the owner's policy showing the impact of the simultaneous purchase discount. 85 The intent of this rule is to provide consumers with information on the incremental additional cost associated with obtaining an owner's title insurance policy, and the cost they would be required to pay for the lender's policy if they did not purchase an owner's policy. Examiners found that some creditors violated Regulation Z by disclosing the lender's title insurance premium at the discounted rate and the owner's title insurance at the full premium on the Loan Estimate. Supervision requested that the creditors revise their policies and procedures to ensure correct disclosure of title insurance premiums where there is a simultaneous issuance rate for lender's and owner's title policies.

Regulation Z states that a “contract or other agreement relating to a consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling . . . may not be applied or interpreted to bar a consumer from bringing a claim in court pursuant to any provision of law for damages or other relief in connection with any alleged violation of Federal law.”  86 In light of this provision, examiners previously concluded that certain waiver provisions are deceptive where reasonable consumers could construe the waivers to bar them from bringing Federal claims in court related to their mortgages. For example, examiners previously identified waiver provisions in home equity installment loan agreements that provided that consumers who signed the agreements waived all other notices or demands in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of the agreement and concluded that those provisions violated the CFPA's prohibition on deceptive acts or practices. 87 Similarly, in the mortgage servicing context, examiners previously identified broad waiver of rights clauses in forbearance, loan modification, and other loss mitigation options and concluded that they violated the CFPA's prohibition against unfair or deceptive acts or practices. 88

Examiners identified a waiver provision in a rider to a security deed that is in use in one state. 89 The waiver provided that borrowers who signed the agreement waived all of their rights to notice or to judicial hearing before the lender exercises its right to nonjudicially foreclose on the property. Examiners concluded that the use of this provision by mortgage lenders violated the CFPA's prohibition on deceptive acts or practices. Regulation X, 12 CFR 1024.41, implementing the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), requires mortgage servicers to provide borrowers with certain notices in the loss mitigation context and borrowers may bring suit to enforce those provisions. A reasonable consumer could understand the provision to waive the consumer's right to sue over a loss mitigation notice violation in the nonjudicial foreclosure context. This misrepresentation is material because it could dissuade consumers from consulting a lawyer or otherwise bringing Federal claims in court related to the transaction. Thus, examiners concluded that the waiver provision was deceptive. In response to the examination findings, the entities committed to discontinuing use of the form containing the waiver.

Examiners also found that entities required borrowers in another State to agree to a waiver, in the event of default, of any equity or right of redemption in the loan security agreement for cooperative units. Specifically, the waiver stated that in the event of default, lenders may sell the security at public or private sale and thereafter hold the security free from any claim or right whatsoever of the borrower, who waives all rights of redemption, stay or appraisal which the borrower has or may have under any rule or statute. Examiners determined that the waiver language would likely mislead a consumer into believing that by signing the agreement they waived their right to bring any claim in court, including Federal claims. 90 This interpretation could appear reasonable to a consumer. The misrepresentation was material because it was likely to affect whether a consumer would choose to retain counsel or pursue claims against the entity in the future. As a result, the entities implemented an agreement resolving the issue and committed to providing clarification to all affected borrowers.

Bureau examinations continue to review for violations of mortgage servicing requirements. Examiners determined that servicers violated Regulation X by making the first notice or filing for foreclosure when it was prohibited. 91 Examiners also determined that servicers engaged in a deceptive act or practice when they represented to borrowers that they would not initiate a foreclosure action until a specified date, but nevertheless initiated foreclosures prior to that date. Examiners also found that servicers failed to maintain policies and procedures, as required by Regulation X, reasonably designed to achieve specific objectives described in Regulation X. 92

Additionally, examiners found that servicers violated Regulation X by conducting an annual escrow analysis that assumed that private mortgage insurance (PMI) payments would continue for the entire escrow analysis period, despite the servicers' knowledge that PMI would be automatically terminated before the end of the escrow analysis period. 93

Regulation X generally prohibits a servicer from making the first notice or filing required for foreclosure if the consumer submits a complete loss mitigation application unless the servicer has completed the review of the application, considered any appeals, the borrower rejects all loss mitigation options offered by the servicer, or the borrower fails to perform under an agreement on a loss mitigation option. If a consumer submits all of the documents requested by the servicer in response to the notice in 12 CFR 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B), then the application is “facially complete” and the servicer must treat the application as complete for the purposes of the foreclosure referral protections of 12 CFR 1024.41(f)(2) until the borrower is given a reasonable opportunity to complete the application.

Examiners found that servicers violated Regulation X by making the first filing for foreclosure after the loan application was facially complete but before meeting the requirements of 12 CFR 1024.41(f)(2). The servicers received all the information requested in the 12 CFR 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B) notice and therefore the application was facially complete. However, the servicers did not place a foreclosure hold on the account when the documents were received. Instead, the servicers waited until they had completed internal analysis that the application was facially complete, which took more than a day, during which time a foreclosure filing occurred in spite of the facially complete application having been received.

As a result of this finding, servicers remediated foreclosure fees that were charged to consumers who had submitted facially complete applications prior to the first foreclosure filing. They also enhanced their procedures, employee training, and monitoring controls.

Regulation X also prohibits a servicer from making the first notice or filing for foreclosure before making a decision on a borrower's timely appeal of a denied loss mitigation application. 94

Institutions violated Regulation X by making the first notice or filing for foreclosure before they had evaluated borrowers' appeals. The servicers denied the borrowers' loss mitigation applications and provided the borrowers with information about appealing the determination as required under Regulation X. The borrowers submitted the appeal within the 14-day period under 12 CFR 1024.41(h)(2). Prior to making a determination regarding the appeal, the servicers made a first notice or filing for foreclosure, violating Regulation X. 95 In response to this finding, servicers enhanced policies and procedures, training, and monitoring controls.

Regulation X requires servicers to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve specific objectives described in the regulation. 96 It provides that servicers' policies and procedures shall be reasonably designed to facilitate the sharing of accurate and current information regarding the status of any evaluation of a borrower's loss mitigation application and the status of any foreclosure proceeding among appropriate servicer personnel, including service provider personnel responsible for handling foreclosure proceedings. 97

Some servicers had policies and procedures to notify foreclosure counsel to stop all legal fillings only after the servicer had sent borrowers the notice acknowledging receipt of a complete loss mitigation application, which may be sent to a consumer up to five days after receipt of their application. This represents a failure to facilitate the sharing with its service providers of accurate and current information regarding the status of borrowers' loss mitigation applications. Because the servicers did not inform foreclosure counsel that a complete loss mitigation application had been submitted until it sent the loss mitigation acknowledgement notice, they failed to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve the objective of 12 CFR 1024.38(b)(3)(iii). In response to these findings, servicers updated their policies and procedures.

Regulation X's requirements related to loss mitigation applications do not apply to consumers submitting additional loss mitigation applications under certain circumstances. Specifically, they do not apply where a servicer has previously complied with the regulation's loss mitigation requirements for a complete loss mitigation application and the borrower has been delinquent at all times since submitting the prior complete application. 98

Some servicers failed to adopt appropriate policies and procedures for responding accurately to such repeat loss mitigation applications. Examiners identified a deceptive practice when servicers represented to borrowers that they would not initiate a foreclosure action until a specified date, but nevertheless initiated a foreclosure prior to that date. These servicers maintained a policy of using model communications for all borrowers that included language reflecting Regulation X protections for borrowers submitting loss mitigation applications regardless of whether Regulation X protections actually applied to those borrowers. Examiners identified loss mitigation files where the servicers specifically indicated in letters that they would not initiate a foreclosure action until a specific date. Examiners noted that the date was consistent with the timeline that Regulation X would require if the application were protected by those provisions. Nevertheless, the servicers did initiate foreclosure actions prior to that date.

The inaccurate representations regarding the day foreclosure action would be initiated were likely to mislead borrowers into believing that they had more time until foreclosure than they actually did. It was reasonable for consumers to believe these representations since the information was provided on multiple loss mitigation related disclosures sent in response to the application. The representations were material because borrowers plan how they will obtain and when they will send necessary documents, and what actions they will take regarding their delinquent mortgages, based on the information provided—including the timeline for foreclosure. In response to these findings, servicers updated the information contained in letters sent to consumers.

Regulation X requires servicers to conduct an annual escrow analysis, in which they estimate the disbursement amounts of escrow account items. 99 If the servicer “knows the charge” for an item “in the next computation year,” then it “shall use that amount” in its estimate. 100 Servicers violated the requirements of 12 CFR 1024.17(c)(7) by including in the annual escrow analysis a full year of PMI disbursements, despite knowing that PMI would be charged for only part of the year.

PMI, when required, is automatically terminated when the principal balance of the mortgage loan reaches 78 percent of the original value of the property based on the amortization schedule, as long as the borrower is current. Examiners found that one or more servicers' systems maintain all relevant information to determine the termination date. Therefore, these servicers “know” that the charges for PMI will not last a full twelve months and will terminate before the end of the escrow year. Because the servicers know the charges for PMI will terminate for certain mortgages, including PMI charges after the termination date in the annual escrow analysis violates 12 CFR 1024.17(c)(7). In response to these findings, the servicers began considering the PMI termination information in their systems while conducting the annual escrow analysis.

The Bureau's Supervision program covers entities that offer or provide payday loans. Examinations of these lenders identified deceptive acts or practices.

Examiners found that lenders engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CFPA when they sent delinquent borrowers collection letters stating an “intent to sue” if the consumer did not pay the loan. 101 Examiners found the representations misled or were likely to mislead consumers, and that consumers' interpretations were reasonable. A reasonable borrower could understand the letters to mean that the lender had decided it would sue if a borrower did not make payments as required by the letter. In fact, the lenders had not decided prior to sending the letters that they would sue if borrowers did not pay, and in most cases did not sue borrowers who did not pay. The representations were material because they could induce delinquent borrowers to change their conduct regarding their loans. For example, consumers may have made payments they otherwise would not have, in order to avoid the possibility of suit. In response to examination findings, the entities ceased issuing letters stating an intent to sue where such a determination had not already been made, and enhanced collections communication-related policies and procedures, training, and monitoring.

Examiners observed that lenders engaged in a deceptive act or practice in violation of the CFPA when they falsely represented on storefronts and in photos on proprietary websites that they would not check a consumer's credit history. In fact, the lenders used consumer reports from at least one consumer reporting agency in determining whether to extend credit. It was reasonable for a consumer to interpret the representations as meaning that the lenders would not check a consumer's credit history when deciding whether to extend credit, and the representations were material because they were likely to affect consumers' conduct with respect to applying for loans. Prospective customers may have had concerns about their credit histories and ability to obtain credit, and consequently made a different choice. Moreover, storefront advertising claims were express and presumed material. In response to these findings, the lenders ceased making misleading representations on signage at branch locations and websites, and implemented enhanced advertising oversight.

When consumers indicated an inability to repay their payday loans, lenders engaged in a deceptive act or practice by presenting payment options to consumers in a manner that misled or was likely to mislead them. Examiners found that, as a result of the institutions' process of presenting fee-based refinance options to struggling borrowers while withholding information about contractually available no-cost repayment plan options, many consumers entered into fee-based refinances despite being eligible for a no-cost repayment option.

The presentation of payment options misled, or was likely to mislead, consumers into believing that there was not a no-cost installment repayment option despite the loan agreements providing for one. Consumers may have also been misled into believing that a no-cost option was only available if the consumers first rejected or were found ineligible for other options, such as a fee-based refinance. A consumer's misunderstanding of their repayment options would be reasonable in light of the fact that the consumers who elected these other options were not told about the no-cost repayment plan option by the institution at the time that the consumers expressed difficulty repaying their loans. The institutions' misleading practice was material because it caused consumers to incur fees, such as for refinances, that could have been avoided had they been aware of their contractual right to a no-cost repayment option.

The Bureau has supervisory authority over entities that offer or provide private education loans. 102 The Bureau examines private education loan origination activities for compliance with applicable Federal consumer financial laws, including assessing whether entities have engaged in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices prohibited by the CFPA. Examinations of these entities identified at least one deceptive act or practice.

Examiners found that entities engaged in a deceptive act or practice  103 by (1) advertising rates “as low as” X%, (2) disclosing certain conditions to obtain that rate ( e.g., the borrower must make automatic payments and the rate was available only for applications filed by a date certain), and (3) omitting that a borrower's rate would depend on their creditworthiness. Examiners determined that the net impression of the marketing materials misled or was likely to mislead consumers to believe the “as low as” rate was available regardless of creditworthiness. The consumers' interpretation of such representations was reasonable under the circumstances and the entities' misleading representations were material to consumers' decisions to apply for a private education loan because it could impact the consumer's decision to apply for or take the loan. As a result, the entities have removed the phrase “as low as” from its marketing materials and, rather, advertises the entire range of rates ( e.g., “X.XX%-YY.YY%”). Also, each entity involved now discloses that the lowest rates are only available for the most creditworthy applicants, in addition to other disclosures.

The Bureau continues to examine student loan servicing activities, primarily to assess whether entities have engaged in any unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices prohibited by the CFPA. Examiners identified three types of misrepresentations servicers made regarding consumer eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. Examiners also identified two unfair acts or practices related to failure to reverse negative consequences of automatic natural disaster forbearances and an unfair act or practice related to failing to honor consumer payment allocation instructions. Additionally, examiners continued to find that servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices related to providing inaccurate monthly payment amounts to consumers after a loan transfer, as previously discussed in Supervisory Highlights. 104

PSLF may provide significant relief for consumers that work at 501(c)(3) nonprofits; government organizations; or other types of non-profit organizations that provide certain types of qualifying public services. Under the program, consumers that make 120 qualifying payments on their Direct Loans while working for an eligible employer and repaying under an eligible repayment plan may have the balance of their loans forgiven. There is significant confusion about eligibility for PSLF, which is further complicated by the relative complexity of student loan types and terms. Consequently, examiners observed borrowers with Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans requesting information from servicers about their eligibility for PSLF or inquiring about terms of the program.

While FFELP loans are not initially eligible for PSLF, FFELP borrowers can consolidate into a Direct Consolidation Loan, which is eligible. Once consolidated, the consumer can start making eligible payments toward the 120 needed for forgiveness. Direct Consolidation Loan borrowers are also eligible for other benefits like improved income-driven repayment options, while their FFELP loan counterparts are not.

Examiners observed that servicers regularly provide FFELP borrowers information about PSLF. Examiners found that servicers regularly provided inaccurate information about eligibility for PSLF or Direct Consolidation Loans, resulting in deceptive acts or practices described below.

In examinations of student loan servicers, examiners identified a deceptive act or practice where servicer employees represented to FFELP loan borrowers that they could submit their employer certification forms (ECF) to receive a determination on whether their employers are eligible employers for PSLF. Yet under PSLF program guidelines, FFELP borrowers who submit an ECF prior to consolidation into a Direct Loan will be rejected, without any determination about employer eligibility.

The servicers' representations are likely to mislead borrowers into believing that they should submit an ECF prior to consolidation to receive confirmation that their employers are eligible. Consumers' interpretation was reasonable under the circumstances and they were likely to be misled by the servicers' representations, given the specificity of agents' statements and the fact that agents routinely provided information about the PSLF program. FFELP borrowers were likely interested in entering the PSLF program as soon as possible, so that they could begin making the 120 payments required for forgiveness. The agents' information was material because it was likely to affect FFELP borrowers' conduct in taking the steps necessary to enter PSLF—most notably, consolidating their loans—and could delay these borrowers' entry into the program by the time it takes to go through the ECF process.

Examiners found that servicers engaged in a deceptive act or practice by advising borrowers with FFELP loans that the loans could not become eligible for PSLF.

Consumers with FFELP loans can consolidate their loans into a Direct Consolidation Loan and become eligible for PSLF. Examiners found that during calls servicers represented to consumers with FFELP loans that they had no potential course of action to become eligible for PSLF. This representation was likely to mislead consumers because, in fact, their loans could become eligible through consolidation. Consumers' interpretation was reasonable under the circumstances because they reasonably believed that they had made their interest in eligibility for PSLF clear, and reasonably interpreted the servicers' representations to mean that they could not take steps to qualify for PSLF. The representations were material because consumers called to inquire about loan forgiveness and if they had received accurate information may have taken steps to convert their FFELP loans to Direct Loans.

Examiners found that servicers risked engaging in a deceptive act or practice by informing borrowers interested in the PSLF program that they are only eligible if their employer is a nonprofit. The PSLF program provides loan forgiveness for eligible Federal student loans after ten years of payments by consumers who meet certain requirements, including that they work for a qualifying employer. Qualifying employers include local, State, Federal or tribal government entities; 501(c)(3) nonprofits; and or other types of non-profit organizations that provide certain types of qualifying public services. Servicers stated in calls that consumers could be eligible for PSLF if they worked for nonprofits but did not mention that government employees and other types of employees are also eligible. This statement created the net impression that only employees of nonprofits were eligible. This was likely to mislead consumers, because other employment types are also eligible. This was a reasonable interpretation under the circumstances because servicers routinely provide consumers with information about eligibility for various programs. Finally, the representation was material to eligible consumers' decision regarding whether to pursue PSLF. As a result of examiner findings, the servicers implemented a new training program for agents.

Examiners identified unfair practices related to enrollment in natural disaster forbearances at entities servicing private student loans. Generally, student loan borrowers become eligible for a natural disaster forbearance when they, or their cosigners, reside in a zip code impacted by a declared natural disaster. In most situations this forbearance is opt-in, allowing consumers to contact their servicer and request the payment relief. However, at some servicers, examiners identified that certain populations of loans were automatically enrolled in the forbearance without a specific request from the consumer—even if they were otherwise current on their loans. Within this subset of consumers whose accounts were automatically placed into a natural disaster forbearance, examiners identified two unfair practices.

First, examiners noted that despite the natural disaster declaration, some consumers did not want to be enrolled in the forbearance and requested to return to repayment. Often consumers identified negative consequences of forbearance and complained to their servicer about enrollment. For example, forbearance resulted in certain consumers losing payment incentives such as interest rate reductions for making on-time payments. It also resulted in consumers accruing unpaid interest during the period. And following a consumer complaint, one servicer failed to reverse the consequences of these unwanted automatic forbearances.

Second, at one servicer, enrollment in the automatic forbearance resulted in unenrollment of borrowers in the auto-debit program completely. In other words, auto-debit did not resume when these forbearances ended following cancelation of the forbearance or the regular termination of the forbearance period. This resulted in consumers becoming past due on the loan when they believed that their payments had been automatically debited.

Consumers could not reasonably avoid the injury from either practice because the natural disaster forbearance was placed on their accounts automatically. Even where consumers recognized the forbearance was placed and contacted their servicer to opt-out, the servicers failed to fully reverse the consequences of the action. For consumers who explicitly do not want a natural disaster forbearance, the injuries were not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. The servicers have ceased automatically enrolling consumers in natural disaster forbearances.

Examiners found that servicers engaged in an unfair act or practice by failing to waive or refund overcharges they assessed after loan transfers. In previous editions of Supervisory Highlights, the Bureau has discussed other findings related to inaccurately billed amounts after loan transfers.

More specifically, consumers had enrolled in Income-Based Repayment (IBR) plans that lowered their student loan payment to a percentage of their discretionary income. When the loans were transferred to new servicers, they did not honor the terms of the IBR plan and sent consumers periodic statements listing inaccurate payment amounts, and in some instances, initiated automatic electronic debits in the incorrect amount. The servicers notified consumers of the error but did not refund or offer to refund any overpayments.

The conduct caused or was likely to cause substantial injury to consumers because the servicers required payments in excess of the amount required under the terms of the consumers' IBR plans. Consumers could not reasonably avoid the injury because they relied on the servicers' calculations and representations in the periodic statements. Further, the servicers did not provide refunds to consumers if they requested refunds of the overpayments. The injury from this activity is not outweighed by the countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. For example, the benefits to consumers or competition from avoiding the cost of better monitoring of servicing transfers between entities would not outweigh the substantial injury to consumers. In response to the examination findings, these servicers added additional controls to their loan onboarding process.

Most servicers handle multiple student loans for one borrower in combined student loan accounts. Servicers bill borrowers for the sum of the minimum monthly payments for each loan.

Examiners found that servicers engaged in an unfair practice by failing to follow borrowers' explicit standing instructions regarding payment allocation. 105

Examiners found that certain accounts contained at least one incorrectly applied payment. The failure to follow payment instructions resulted in borrowers paying more over the life of their loans or experiencing lost or delayed borrower benefits, such as co-signer release. Consumers were unable to reasonably avoid the injury because they relied on the servicers' representation that they would allocate payments in accordance with the instructions provided. Finally, the injury from these errors is not outweighed by the countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. In response to these findings, services implemented new training and additional monitoring of payment allocation instructions.

The CFPB and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement to improve coordination between the agencies related to the consumer protection supervision of credit unions with over $10 billion in assets. 106

The MOU better facilitates coordinated examinations to reduce redundancy and unnecessary overlap. CFPB and NCUA will also share information on training activities and content. Finally, the MOU will permit both agencies to share information related to supervisory activities and potential enforcement actions.

On January 19, 2021, the CFPB issued a final rule regarding the Bureau's use of supervisory guidance for its supervised institutions. 107 The rule codifies the statement, with amendments, that the Bureau and other Federal financial regulatory agencies issued in September 2018, which clarified the differences between regulations and supervisory guidance. The final rule states that unlike a law or regulation, supervisory guidance does not have the force and effect of law and the Bureau does not take enforcement actions or issue supervisory criticisms based on non-compliance with supervisory guidance. Rather, supervisory guidance outlines supervisory expectations and priorities, or articulates views regarding appropriate practices for a given subject area.

The Bureau collaborated closely with other Federal financial regulatory agencies in this rulemaking, including by issuing a joint proposal for public comment.

On March 9, 2021, the Bureau issued an interpretive rule clarifying that the prohibition against sex discrimination under ECOA and Regulation B includes sexual orientation discrimination and gender identity discrimination. 108 This prohibition also covers discrimination based on actual or perceived nonconformity with traditional sex- or gender-based stereotypes, and discrimination based on an applicant's social or other associations.

On March 11, 2021, the Bureau announced that it has rescinded its January 24, 2020 policy statement, “Statement of Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices.”  109

DoD is seeking public input on the following questions related to implementation of sustainability initiatives including Executive Order 14030, Climate-Related Financial Risk dated May 20, 2021.

• Does your organization measure and report Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions in line with the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard or equivalent? If not the GHG Protocol, which standard(s) are used?

• Does your organization currently report Scope 3 GHG emissions? If so, which Scope 3 categories are reported and which methodologies and/or standards are used?

• Does your organization publicly report your GHG results either through a third-party organization or as part of an external corporate sustainability report?

• Does your organization disclose its GHG emissions inventory on an annual basis? If so, where or by what platform?

• Does your organization set and disclose targets for GHG emissions reduction and/or science-based targets? If so, are these targets reviewed or verified by a third party?

• Does your organization report climate risk-related information as part of your standard financial reporting disclosures?

• Would your organization be willing to participate in a pilot program involving voluntary disclosure of actual GHG emissions and GHG emission targets?

• Does your organization participate in ESG reporting? If so, which sustainability standards or platforms does your organization use ( e.g., Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (SEDEX))?

• What is the role of third-party verification in your ESG activities?

• Does your organization's ESG-related reporting include accounting for and addressing disparate impacts on disadvantaged communities and communities of color?

• Does your organization's ESG-related reporting include creation of jobs associated with the shift away from carbon-intensive energy sources?

• Does your organization have the ability to provide customers with GHG emissions information specific to their purchases or contracts? If so, at what level can your organization provide this information ( e.g., by customer on an annual basis, contract, item)?

• Does your organization collect GHG emissions information from your suppliers? If so, what systems, standards, or instruments are used to collect this information? If so, how is this information used?

• Do you require your suppliers to set GHG emissions reduction targets or related targets ( e.g., energy efficiency, clean electricity)?

This system of records supports the SECO and MyCAA Programs, which make resources and tools available to help military spouses with career exploration and discovery, career education and training, employment readiness, and career connections at any point within the military spouse's career. The DoD SECO Program, with the addition of the MyCAA Program, will assist military spouses in pursuing licenses, certificates, certifications or Associate's degrees (excluding Associate's degrees in general studies, liberal arts, and interdisciplinary studies that do not have a concentration) necessary for gainful employment in high demand, high-growth portable career fields and occupations. The system allows the spouse to build a profile including their contact information, education, and employment data. The system allows the spouse to save information over time to easily prepopulate it into tools such as resume builders and career and education planning resources. Records in this system may also be used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, reporting, evaluating program effectiveness, conducting research, and for surveys to inform departmental decisions on military support and benefits policy.

Subject to public comment, the DoD proposes to update this SORN to add the standard DoD routine uses (routine uses A through I) and to allow for additional disclosures outside DoD related to the purpose of this system of records. Additionally, the following sections of the DPR 46 SORN are also being changed: System name, system location, authority, purpose, categories of records, record source categories, retrieval of records, retention and disposal of records, safeguards, contesting records, notification procedures, and history.

DoD SORNs have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division (DPCLTD) website at https://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/ .

Under the Privacy Act, a “system of records” is a group of records under the control of an agency from 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 as a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, DPCLTD has provided a report of this system of records to the OMB and to Congress.

The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders on issues related to the proposed definition of “an area in which there is inadequate electric service.” WPTO is updating its application requirements for the hydroelectric incentive program authorized under Section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58), 42 U.S.C. 15881. Section 3005 of the Energy Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-260) amended Section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by expanding the definition of a qualified hydroelectric facility to include certain facilities “constructed in an area in which there is inadequate electric service.” To define this term, section 3005 requires the Secretary to take into consideration (a) access to the electric grid; (b) the frequency of electric outages; or (c) the affordability of electricity. EERE is specifically interested in identifying potential issues or conflicts that may arise from applying the proposed definition during the application review process. This is solely a request for information and not a Funding Opportunity Announcement. EERE is not accepting applications at this time.

Confidential Business Information: According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 17, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

On January 12, 2017, FERC approved and confirmed Rate Schedules P-DP Network (PD-NTS4), Intertie Network (INT-NTS4), Scheduling, System Control, and Dispatch (DSW-SD4), Reactive Supply and Voltage Control (DSW-RS4), Regulation and Frequency Response (DSW-FR4), Energy Imbalance (DSW-EI4), Generator Imbalance (DSW-GI2), Spinning Reserve (DSW-SPR4), Supplemental Reserve (DSW-SUR4), Transmission Losses (DSW-TL1), and Unreserved Use Penalties (DSW-UU1) under Rate Order No. WAPA-175 for a 5-year period through September 30, 2021. 1 These rate schedules also contain formula rates that are calculated each fiscal year to include the most recent financial, load, and schedule information, as applicable.

In accordance with 10 CFR 903.23(a), 2 DSW is proposing to extend the existing formula rates under these Rate Schedules for Network, ancillary services, transmission losses, and unreserved use penalties for a 5-year period through September 30, 2026. The existing formula rates for these services were designed to recover the costs incurred for providing each service, which is consistent with the cost recovery criteria set forth in Department of Energy (DOE) Order No. RA 6120.2. These formula rates continue to provide sufficient revenue to cover expenses, and no adjustments are necessary.

In accordance with 10 CFR 903.23(a), WAPA has determined it is not necessary to hold public information or public comment forums for this rate action, but is initiating a 15-day consultation and comment period to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed extension. DSW will review and consider all timely public comments at the conclusion of the consultation and comment period and adjust the proposal, if appropriate.

By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00B, effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to WAPA's Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, or to remand or disapprove such rates, to FERC. By Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S4-2021, effective February 25, 2021, the Acting Secretary of Energy also delegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Under Secretary for Science (and Energy). By Redelegation Order No. S4-DEL-OE1-2021, effective March 25, 2021, the Acting Under Secretary for Science (and Energy) redelegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Assistant Secretary for Electricity. By Redelegation Order No. 00-002.10-05, effective July 8, 2020, the Assistant Secretary for Electricity further redelegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to WAPA's Administrator. This redelegation order, despite predating the February 2021 and March 2021 delegations, remains valid.

WAPA is in the process of determining whether an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement should be prepared or if this action can be categorically excluded from those requirements. 3

WAPA has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 28, 2021, by Tracey A. LeBeau, Interim Administrator, Western Area Power Administration, 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 Federal Register .

Title and Form Number: EIB 92-79 Broker Registration Form.

Form Title: EIB 92-79 Broker Registration Form.

OMB Number: 3048-0024.

Type of Review: Regular.

Need and Use: This form is used by insurance brokers to register with Export Import Bank. The form provides Export Import Bank staff with the information necessary to make a determination of the eligibility of the broker to receive commission payments under Export Import Bank's credit insurance programs.

Affected Public: This form affects entities engaged in brokering export credit insurance policies.

Annual Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.

Frequency of Reporting or Use: Once every three years.

Government Expenses:

Review Time per Response: 2 hours.

Reviewing Time per Year: 100 hours.

Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

Average Cost per Year: $4,250.

Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

Total Government Cost: $5,100.

FCC/OMD-32 contains personally identifiable information from employees including employment information such as title, grade, series, bureau or office, supervisory chain; work contact information; alternate worksite information, including address and contact information at an alternate worksite; and justification documentation for requests for long-distance or fulltime telework that describe a temporary employee hardship. The FCC uses the information to manage the telework program, including conducting audits and reports. This notice serves to modify FCC/OMD-32 to reflect various necessary changes and updates, including format changes required by OMB Circular A-108 since its previous publication, edits to existing routine uses, deleting five routine uses, and the addition of three routine uses, two of which address data breaches, as required by OMB Memorandum M-17-12. The substantive changes and modification to the previously published version of FCC/OMD-32 include:

1. Updating the Security Classification to follow OMB and FCC guidance.

2. Updating the System Location to show the FCC's new headquarters address.

3. Renumbering and revising language in eight Routine Uses: (1) FCC Program Management, (2) Labor Relations, (3), General Services Administration, (4) U.S. Department of Labor, (5) Congressional Inquiries, (6) Government-wide Program Management and Oversight, (7) Law Enforcement and Investigation, (8) Adjudication and Litigation.

4. Deleting five existing Routine Uses: (2) FCC Contractors; (9) Department of Justice; (10) Breach of Federal Data; (12) Employment, Clearances, Licensing, Contract, Grant, or other Benefits Decisions by the agency; and (13) Employment, Clearances, Licensing, Contract, Grant, or other Benefits Decisions by other than the agency.

5. Adding three new Routine Uses: (9) Breach Notification, to allow how the FCC addresses information breaches at the Commission; (10) Assistance to Federal Agencies and Entities, to allow the FCC to provide assistance to other Federal agencies in their data breach situations; and (11) For Non-Federal Personnel, to allow contractors performing or working on a contract for the Federal Government access to information in this system. New Routine Uses (9) and (10) are required by OMB Memorandum M-17-12.

6. Replacing the Disclosures to Consumer Reporting section with a new Reporting to a Consumer Reporting Agency section to address valid and overdue debts owed by individuals to the FCC under the Debt Collection Act, as recommended by OMB.

7. Adding a History section referencing the previous publication of this SORN in the Federal Register , as required by OMB Circular A-108.

The system of records is also updated to reflect various administrative changes related to the policy and practices for storage of the information; administrative, technical, and physical safeguards; and updated notification, records access, and procedures to contest records.

After consultation with the General Services Administration, the Commission has renewed the charter on June 29, 2021, providing the Committee with authorization to operate for two years.

The mission of the Committee is to make recommendations to the Commission on advancing equity in the provision of and access to digital communication services and products for all people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability. It shall provide recommendations to the Commission on how to empower people of color and others who have been historically underserved, including persons who live in rural areas, and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality, to access, leverage, and benefit from the wide range of opportunities made possible by technology, communication services and next-generation networks.

The Committee will be organized under, and will operate in accordance with, the provisions of the FACA (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The Committee will be solely advisory in nature. Consistent with FACA and its requirements, each meeting of the Committee will be open to the public unless otherwise noticed. A notice of each meeting will be published in the Federal Register at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the meeting. Records will be maintained of each meeting and made available for public inspection. All activities of the Committee will be conducted in an open, transparent, and accessible manner. The Committee shall terminate two (2) years from the filing date of its charter, or earlier upon the completion of its work as determined by the Chair of the FCC, unless its charter is renewed prior to the termination date.

During this term, the Committee's third, it is anticipated that the Committee will meet approximately three (3) times a year. The first meeting date and agenda topics will be described in a Public Notice issued and published in the Federal Register at least fifteen (15) days prior to the first meeting date. In addition, as needed, working groups or subcommittees (ad hoc or steering) will be established to facilitate the Committee's work between meetings of the full Committee. Meetings of the Committee will be fully accessible to individuals with disabilities.

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:

1. Title: Notice of Branch Closure.

OMB Number: 3064-0109.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: FDIC-insured depository institutions.

Burden Estimate:

Total Estimated Annual Burden : 1,738 hours.

General Description of Collection: Section 42 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act mandates that an insured depository institution closing a branch notify its primary federal regulator not later than 90 days prior to the closing. The statute also provides that a notice be posted on the premises of the branch for the 30-day period immediately prior to the closing and that the customers be notified in a mailing at least 90 days prior to the closing. Each insured depository institution that has one or more branches is required to adopt a written policy for branch closings.

2. Title: Notification of Changes of Insured Status.

OMB Number: 3064-0124.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Insured depository institutions.

Burden Estimate:

Total Estimated Annual Burden : 256 hours.

General Description of Collection: This information collection consists of two parts: (1) A certification that insured depository institutions provide the FDIC when all deposit liabilities from one insured depository institution are assumed from another insured depository institution, with the latter institution responsible for providing the certification, and (2) a notification that an insured depository institution provides to its depositors when it seeks to voluntarily terminate its insured status. The certification is necessary to implement the provisions of section 8(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1818(q), regarding termination of the insured status of the transferring institution and termination of the separate deposit insurance coverage provided on deposit accounts assumed by the assuming institution. The depositor notification is required by section 8(a)(6) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1818(a)(6). This provision ensures that the institution's depositors receive appropriate information regarding the institution's intent to terminate its insured status and that, prior to the termination of the institution's insured status, depositors receive appropriate information concerning federal deposit insurance coverage of their accounts once the institution's insured status is terminated.

3. Title: Large-Bank Deposit Insurance Programs.

OMB Number: 3064-0162.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Insured depository institutions having at least $2 billion in deposits and at least either: (a) 250,000 Deposit accounts; or (b) $20 billion in total assets, regardless of the number of deposit accounts (a “covered institution”).

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: Upon the failure of an FDIC-insured depository institution, the FDIC is required to pay insured deposits as soon as possible. To do so, the FDIC must be able to quickly determine the total insured amount for each depositor. To make this determination, the FDIC must ascertain the balances of all deposit accounts owned by the same depositor in the same ownership capacity at a failed institution as of the day of failure. The FDIC issued a regulation (12 CFR 360.9) (Section 360.9) to modernize the process of determining the insurance status of each depositor in the event of failure of a covered institution. The FDIC requires institutions that are covered under Section 360.9 to have mechanisms in place that will automatically place a provisional hold on domestic and foreign deposit accounts, and sweep and automated credit account arrangements, in the event that a covered institution is close to failing. A “provisional hold” is defined in 12 CFR Section 360.9(b)(6) as “an effective restriction on access to some or all of a deposit or other liability account after the failure of an insured depository institution.” Section 360.9 also requires institutions to have in place practices and procedures for providing the FDIC, in a standard format upon the close of any day's business, certain data on the accounts and customers of the institution, and to provide the FDIC with this information upon request. The purpose of these requirements is to allow the deposit and other operations of a covered institution to continue functioning on the day following failure, and to permit the FDIC to fulfill its legal requirement to promptly provide liquidity to depositors of a failed institution. This information also helps to ensure equitable treatment of depositors at different institutions, and helps to preserve the franchise value of a failed institution, thereby reducing costs to the FDIC in the event that a covered institution fails.

FDIC-insured depository institutions (IDIs) that are covered by Section 360.9 are defined in Section 360.9(b)(1) as having at least $2 billion in deposits and either (1) 250,000 or more deposit accounts, or (2) $20 billion or more in assets, regardless of the number of deposit accounts. IDIs that meet this criteria for two consecutive quarters qualify as covered institutions.

This information collection consists of eight distinct reporting and recordkeeping requirements (ICs) that impose annual burden on covered institutions. Three of these eight reporting requirements have an implementation component as well as an ongoing component: (1) Section 360.9(c)(3) (IC requirements C and H, below) requires covered institutions to provide certain information to the FDIC both while the institution is implementing the systems required under 360.9 (IC requirement C) and on an ongoing basis (IC requirement H); (2.) Section 360.9(c)(9) (IC requirements D and I, below) permits institutions to request an exemption from certain requirements of Section 360.9. Institutions could submit such requests either while they are implementing the systems required under Section 360.9 (IC requirement D) or after they are already in compliance with Section 360.9 (IC requirement I); (3.) Section 360.9(f) (IC requirements G and J, below) permits institutions to request an exemption from all of the requirements of Section 360.9 under certain conditions. Institutions could submit such requests either while they are implementing the systems required under Section 360.9 (IC requirement G) or after they are already in compliance with Section 360.9 (IC requirement J). Since reporting by institutions pursuant to Sections 360.9(c)(3), 360.9(c)(9), and 360.9(f) are counted as both implementation and ongoing requirements, this IC contains eleven  1 requirements in total. These requirements, with corresponding CFR sections, are listed and described as follows:

A. 360.9(c)(1) and (2) (Implementation)—Require covered institutions to set up systems for automatically placing provisional holds on domestic and foreign deposit accounts and sweep and automated credit account arrangements

B. 360.9(d)(1) and (2) (Implementation)—Require covered institutions to establish practices and procedures for providing the FDIC, in a standard format upon the close of any day's business, customer and depositor data for all deposit accounts held in domestic and foreign offices and interest bearing investment accounts connected with sweep and automated credit arrangements

C. 360.9(c)(3) (Implementation)—Requires covered institutions to notify the FDIC of the person(s) responsible for producing the standard data download and administering provisional holds, both while the functionality is being constructed and on an ongoing basis (IC requirement H)

D. 360.9(c)(9) (Implementation)—Permits covered institutions to submit to the FDIC a request for an exemption from the provisional hold requirements for those account systems servicing a relatively small number of accounts where the application of manual provisional holds is feasible, both while the systems are being constructed and on an ongoing basis (IC requirement I)

E. 360.9(d)(3) (Implementation)—Requires covered institutions to submit the data required by 360.9(d)(1) to the FDIC upon request both while the systems are being constructed and on an ongoing basis (IC requirement K)

F. 360.9(e)(7) (Implementation)—Permits covered institutions to submit to the FDIC a request for an extension of the deadline for complying with the requirements of Section 360.9

G. 360.9(f) (Implementation)—Permits covered institutions to apply for an exemption from the requirements of Section 360.9, if the institution has a high concentration of deposits incidental to credit card operations, both during the implementation period in the first year and on an ongoing basis (IC requirement J)

H. 360.9(c)(3) (Ongoing)—Requires covered institutions to provide the information described in IC requirement C above to the FDIC on an ongoing basis

I. 360.9(c)(9) (Ongoing)—Permits covered institutions to request an exemption from the provisional hold requirements, as described in IC requirement D above, both while the systems are being constructed and on an ongoing basis

J. 360.9(f) (Ongoing)—Permits covered institutions to apply for an exemption from the requirements of Section 360.9, as described in IC requirement G above, at any time after the institution is in compliance with the requirements of Section 360.9 if the institution has a high concentration of deposits incidental to credit card operations

K. 360.9(h) (Ongoing)—Requires covered institutions to provide appropriate assistance to the FDIC in its testing of the systems required under Section 360.9

4. Title: Assessment Rate Adjustment Guidelines for Large and Highly Complex Institutions.

OMB Number: 3064-0179.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Large and highly complex depository institutions.

Burden Estimate:

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 160 hours.

General Description of Collection: The FDIC's deposit insurance assessment authority is set forth in Section 7 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1817(b) and (c) and promulgated in regulations under 12 CFR part 327. These regulations also set out the process for making adjustments to the total score of these institutions used by the FDIC in making deposit insurance assessments. Depository institutions are permitted to make a written request to the FDIC for an assessment adjustment. An institution is able to request review of, or appeal, an upward adjustment, the magnitude of an upward adjustment, removal of a previously implemented downward adjustment or an increase in a previously implemented upward adjustment through the FDIC's internal review process set forth at 12 CFR 327.4(c). An institution can similarly request review of or appeal a decision not to apply an adjustment following a request by the institution for an adjustment.

An institution can submit its written request for an adjustment to the FDIC's Director of the Division of Insurance and Research in Washington, DC. In making such a request, the institution will provide support by including evidence of a material risk or risk-mitigating factor that it believes was not adequately considered.

5. Title: Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital, Revisions to the Supplementary Leverage Ratio.

OMB Number: 3064-0196.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations that are subject to the FDIC's advanced approaches risk-based capital rules.

Burden Estimate:

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 100 hours.

General Description of Collection: The supplementary leverage ratio regulations strengthen the definition of total leverage exposure and improve the measure of a banking organization's on and off-balance sheet exposures. All banking organizations that are subject to the advanced approaches risk-based capital rules are required to disclose their supplementary leverage ratios. Advanced approaches banking organizations must report their supplementary leverage ratios on the applicable regulatory reports. The calculation and disclosure requirements for the supplementary leverage ratio in the federal banking agencies' regulatory capital rules are generally consistent with international standards published by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. These disclosures enhance the transparency and consistency of reporting requirements for the supplementary leverage ratio by all internationally active organizations.

Request for Comment: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 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. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The Final EA and FONSI have been prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 4321), as implemented by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), and policies of the GSA as the lead federal agency. The EA process provides steps and procedures to evaluate the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts from the construction of the proposed FMCSA Bus Inspection Facility at the San Ysidro LPOE while providing an opportunity for local, state, or federal agencies to provide input and/or comment through scoping, public information meetings, and/or a public hearing. The social, economic, and environmental considerations are evaluated and measured, as defined in the CEQ regulations, by their magnitude of impacts.

The bus inspection station allows for FMCSA to conduct inspections of buses entering the United States from Mexico. FMCSA is required to conduct meaningful vehicle safety inspections and to accommodate vehicles placed out of service because of these inspections. The current bus inspection operations at the San Ysidro LPOE lacks the necessary infrastructure for bus inspections and is not adequate to maintain regular inspections. Therefore, the LPOE does not efficiently address safety needs for the travelling public, FMCSA staff, nor the capacity needs identified in future traffic projections at the LPOE. The lack of dedicated bus inspection infrastructure exposes FMCSA to safety risks while conducting inspections and is not in conformance with current FMCSA safety standards. GSA proposes to construct a new FMCSA Bus Inspection facility on a 1.5-acre parcel located north of the existing LPOE.

A public scoping meeting on the project was held on June 18, 2019. Comments received during the meeting were considered by GSA in a Draft EA. The Draft EA was made available for public comment on May 15, 2020. Comments received during the one-month comment period were considered by GSA in this Final EA. The FONSI, which is based on the Final EA, reflects the GSA's determination that construction of the proposed facility will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human or natural environment.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, PIQRAY (alpelisib). PIQRAY is indicated in combination with fulvestrant for the treatment of postmenopausal women, and men, with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, PIK3CA-mutated, advanced or metastatic breast cancer as detected by an FDA-approved test following progression on or after an endocrine-based regimen. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for PIQRAY (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,277,462 and 8,476,268) from Novartis AG and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated December 23, 2019, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of PIQRAY represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for PIQRAY is 3,264 days. Of this time, 3,106 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 158 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: June 18, 2010. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on June 18, 2010.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505 of the FD&C Act: December 18, 2018. The applicant claims October 26, 2018, as the date the new drug application (NDA) for PIQRAY (NDA 212526) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that NDA 212526 was submitted on December 18, 2018.

3. The date the application was approved: May 24, 2019. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 212526 was approved on May 24, 2019.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 969 or 1,156 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES ). Furthermore, as specified in § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of § 60.30, including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES ), must be filed in accordance with § 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

PACHA was established by Executive Order 12963, dated June 14, 1995, as amended by Executive Order 13009, dated June 14, 1996 and is currently operating under the authority given in Executive Order 13889, dated September 27, 2019. The Council was established to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs and policies intended to promote effective prevention and care of HIV infection and AIDS. The functions of the Council are solely advisory in nature.

The Council consists of not more than 25 members. Council members are selected from prominent community leaders with particular expertise in, or knowledge of, matters concerning HIV and AIDS, public health, global health, philanthropy, marketing or business, as well as other national leaders held in high esteem from other sectors of society. Council members are appointed by the Secretary or designee, in consultation with the White House.

We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) responding to this request for information. We will consider all submissions and may adjust agency policy based on your input. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

Methods for submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2021-0233 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Public comments will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions provided on its Frequently Asked Questions page. We review all material received, but we may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

Personal information. We accept anonymous submissions. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

The Coast Guard is issuing this request for information in response to Executive Orders 13990 and 14008, which have established the protection of public health and the environment, the mitigation of climate change, and the advancement of environmental justice as policy priorities for this Administration. Executive Order 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis, 1 states that the Administration's policy is to listen to science; to ensure access to clean air and water; to limit exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides; to hold polluters accountable, including those that disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities; to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change; to restore and expand our national treasures and monuments; and to prioritize both environmental justice and the creation of the well-paying union jobs necessary to deliver on these goals. The Order directs agencies to seek input from the public and stakeholders, including State, local, Tribal, and territorial officials, scientists, labor unions, environmental advocates, and environmental justice organizations.

The Order directs agencies immediately to review all regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, or any other similar agency actions undertaken between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, that are inconsistent with the listed policy priorities. In addition, agencies are directed to contemplate and consider whether to take any additional agency actions, within their authority, to fully enforce the listed policy priorities.

Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, 2 further places the climate crisis at the center of U.S. foreign policy and national security by deploying the full capacity of its agencies to combat the climate crisis, by implementing a Government-wide approach that reduces climate pollution in every sector of the economy; by increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change; by protecting public health; by conserving our lands, waters, and biodiversity; by delivering environmental justice; and by spurring well-paying jobs and economic growth, especially through innovation, commercialization, and deployment of clean energy technologies and infrastructure. The Order states that successfully meeting these challenges will require the Federal Government to pursue a coordinated approach from planning to implementation, coupled with substantive engagement by stakeholders, including State, local, and Tribal governments.

This request for information is also consistent with Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 3 which calls for a regulatory system that is based on the best available science and protects public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. The Executive Order directs agencies to consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Executive Order 13563 is affirmed in the President's Memorandum of January 20, 2021, Modernizing Regulatory Review. The Coast Guard seeks this input recognizing the importance of reevaluating programs to reduce unnecessary barriers to effectiveness, adapt to new technologies, and ensure mission resiliency when combating and responding to climate change.

The Coast Guard seeks input on how best to use the Coast Guard's statutory authorities to implement these orders and to reduce the risks associated with climate change. Many of the Coast Guard's missions are identified in brief at 6 U.S.C. 468. All of these missions contribute to the facilitation of safe, secure, and environmentally responsible commerce through our stewardship of the marine transportation system. These missions include marine safety; search and rescue; aids to navigation; living marine resources (fisheries law enforcement); marine environmental protection; ice operations; ports, waterways and coastal security; drug interdiction; migrant interdiction; defense readiness; and other law enforcement.

These authorities are connected, of course, with the risks associated with climate change. The Coast Guard also has important responsibilities in acquiring scientific information, including information involving the effects of climate change, and in issuing regulations. While the Coast Guard holds a wide range of regulatory and operational authorities to fulfill these missions, the Coast Guard frequently shares responsibility for these missions with other agencies. 4 In some cases the Coast Guard has the authority to revise regulations, guidelines, policies, or processes to address particular problems in particular ways; in other cases the Coast Guard may be unable to act without the assistance of another agency, or may be unable to act at all. Commenters are therefore encouraged to focus comments on matters within the Coast Guard's authorities, to the extent known to the commenter.

Coast Guard regulations fall within three general categories in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—navigation and navigable waters, shipping, and transportation. Below are the three corresponding titles in the CFR (and the parts in those titles) where you will find our regulations:

• 33 CFR Chapter I (parts 1 through 199),

• 46 CFR Chapters I (parts 1 through 199) and III (parts 400 through 499), and

• 49 CFR Chapter IV (parts 400 through 499).

You can view these regulations on https://www.govinfo.gov/ or https://www.ecfr.gov.

In the CFR, you will find bracketed references to rules published in the Federal Register (for example, xx FR xxxx, date). The Federal Register publications differ from the CFR in that that, through the preamble language, we fully explain our reasoning for establishing the regulations in that CFR part or section and our estimates of the costs and benefits of those regulations. Rules published since at least 1990 will be available in the Federal Register library on https://www.govinfo.gov/.

Our rulemaking documents published in the Federal Register also include a number that identifies our online docket. On https://www.regulations.gov, using that docket number, you should be able to find supporting and related material we provided for that rule, including a cost-benefit analysis. In our dockets, you will also find notices of proposed rulemaking and submissions from interested persons who commented on our initial proposal for the regulations that appear in the final rule. The preamble of the final rule contains our responses to those comments.

You can find Coast Guard guidance documents online via https://www.uscg.mil/guidance. Guidance documents include Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars (NVICs), policy letters, bulletins, handbooks, and other items meant to inform the public. On this site, guidance documents are categorized by the Coast Guard office that issued and maintains the documents.

The Coast Guard seeks public comments and suggestions on actions we can take, within our statutory authority, to combat and respond to climate change. As noted above, our mission areas encompass maritime operations, safety, security, environmental stewardship, and facilitation of the maritime commerce that contributes so crucially to a vibrant U.S. economy.

The actions we might take could include revising current regulations, guidelines, policies, or processes that unjustifiably impede or fail to support the development and use of technologies and best practices to combat or respond to climate change in the marine transportation system. We might also orient our efforts to acquire and disseminate information about the effects of climate change in particular ways (for example, through use of data.gov ).

When considering your comments and suggestions, we ask that you keep in mind our missions to ensure a safe, secure, and resilient marine transportation system that facilitates commerce and secures national security interests. Commenters should consider the below principles as they answer and respond to the questions in this notice.

• Commenters should identify, with specificity, the program, regulation, or policy at issue, providing the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) citation where appropriate.

• Commentators should identify, with specificity, small or large reforms that might be justified in light of the risks posed by climate change, whether those reforms involve preparedness, mitigation, adaptation, resilience, or other steps to reduce suffering.

• Commenters should provide, in as much detail as possible, an explanation why a program, regulation, or policy should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, as well as specific suggestions of ways the agency can better achieve its statutory and regulatory objectives in light of the executive orders cited.

• Commenters should provide specific data that document the costs, burdens, and benefits of existing requirements or programs or proposed changes to them, to the extent they are available.

The following questions might help guide your comments and suggestions. Given the Coast Guard's current missions and statutory authority:

1. Do you have suggestions for changes to our current programs, regulations, or policies that would combat climate change or bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change or adapt to its impacts, such as sea level rise?

2. What do you think the primary implications of climate change are for our mission areas?

3. How will climate change affect Coast Guard programs, missions, regulations, and policies in the future?

4. How might the Coast Guard orient or re-orient its efforts to acquire information about the effects of climate change, and how might it best disseminate that information?

5. How do you think the Coast Guard can advance the objectives of environmental justice?

6. Are you aware of any new or emerging technologies appropriate for use in maritime facilities or other industry assets that we should consider when exploring alternatives to address climate change?

7. Which Coast Guard mission areas do you think are most likely to be affected by climate change? How would they be affected?

8. What do you think are the most crucial challenges we will face to address climate change in our programs, missions, regulations, and policies?

9. Do our existing regulations unjustifiably impede or fail to support the development and use of technologies or best practices that would help us address climate change?

10. Are our regulations restrictive on the use of alternative fuels that produce fewer harmful emissions? If so, how? What, specifically, might we do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

11. Do our current polices, such as NVICs or other guidance documents, impede or fail to support the development and use of technologies or best practices to address climate change? If so, how?

12. Is the process of requesting a determination of equivalency to use an alternative approach to regulatory requirements that might address climate change burdensome?

13. What regulatory, policy, or other incentives could the Coast Guard provide to encourage development and use of technologies or best practices in the marine transportation system to combat and respond to climate change?

14. Are there current Coast Guard regulations, guidance, policies, or processes that contribute to climate change? If so, please explain which ones and how.

15. What sources of existing data or studies can Coast Guard use to evaluate the economic impact—positive or negative—from reducing the environmental footprint of USCG programs, regulations, or policies with regards to climate change?

16. What do you expect would be the positive or negative environmental results of the Coast Guard addressing climate change in the maritime domain, particularly in sensitive areas such as the Arctic and U.S. coastal zones?

17. Are there Coast Guard programs, regulations, or policies that do not bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change, particularly for those disproportionately impacted by climate change, and, if so, what are they? How can those programs, regulations, or policies be modified, expanded, streamlined, or repealed to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change?

18. Do you have any suggestions for any changes to the Coast Guard's Arctic strategy or any Coast Guard Arctic programs, such as ice breaking, mapping, and charting missions that might bolster the Coast Guard's ability to combat and respond to climate change?

In addition to these general questions, the Coast Guard seeks any other input on the programs and missions described above that allows the Coast Guard, within our statutory authorities, to combat or respond to the climate crisis and adapt to its impacts on the maritime domain. This request for information is used solely for information gathering purposes and the responses to this RFI do not bind the Coast Guard to any further actions related to the response.

In the Federal Register of July 2, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-14251 on page 35309, in the second column, correct the DATES caption to read:

The STSAC is an advisory Committee established pursuant to section 1969, Division K, TSA Modernization Act, of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254, 132 Stat. 3186, Oct. 5, 2018). The Committee is composed of individual members representing key constituencies affected by surface transportation security requirements.

The STSAC is composed of no more than 40 voting members from among stakeholders representing each mode of surface transportation, such as passenger rail, freight rail, mass transit, pipelines, highways, over-the-road bus, school bus industry, and trucking; and may include representatives from—

1. Associations representing such modes of surface transportation;

2. Labor organizations representing such modes of surface transportation;

3. Groups representing the users of such modes of surface transportation, including asset manufacturers, as appropriate;

4. Relevant law enforcement, first responders, and security experts; and

5. Such other groups as the Administrator considers appropriate.

The STSAC also includes nonvoting members, serving in an advisory capacity, who are designated by the TSA; the Department of Transportation; the Coast Guard; and such other Federal department or agency as the Administrator considers appropriate.

The STSAC does not have a specific number of members allocated to any membership category and the number of members in a category may change to fit the needs of the Committee, but each organization is represented by a minimum of one individual. Members serve as representatives and speak on behalf of their respective constituency group. Membership on the Committee is personal to the appointee and a member may not send an alternate to a Committee meeting. The members of the Committee shall not receive any compensation from the Government by reason of their service on the Committee.

Committee members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Administrator of TSA for a term of two years but a voting member may continue to serve until the Administrator appoints a successor. TSA evaluates committee applicants to determine suitability, which includes a background check.

The Committee shall meet as frequently as deemed necessary by the Designated Federal Officer in consultation with the Chairperson, but no less than two (2) scheduled meetings each year. At least one meeting will be open to the public each year. Unless the Designated Federal Officer decides otherwise, meetings will be held in person or through web conferencing in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

In addition, STSAC members are expected to participate on STSAC subcommittees that normally meet more frequently to deliberate and discuss specific surface transportation matters.

TSA is seeking applications for up to 5 members with specific expertise in the pipeline mode of surface transportation and cybersecurity across all surface transportation modes. Any person wishing to be considered for appointment to STSAC must provide the following:

• Complete professional resume.

• Statement of interest and reasons for application, including the membership category and how you represent a significant portion of that constituency, and also provide a brief explanation of how you can contribute to one or more TSA strategic initiative, based on your prior experience with TSA, or your review of current TSA strategic documents that can be found at www.tsa.gov/about/strategy.

• Home and work addresses, telephone number, and email address.

Please submit your application to the Designated Federal Officer in ADDRESSES noted above by August 9, 2021.

We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce receipt of an application from Vulcan Materials Company for an amendment of an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The applicant requests to modify the existing ITP to allow for take of the federally listed sand skink ( Neoseps reynoldsi ) in an amount above that authorized by the existing permit. The take would be incidental to the activities associated with the operation of a sand mine (project) in Putnam County, Florida. We request public comment on both the application, which includes the applicant's amended proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), and the Service's preliminary determination that this HCP qualifies as “low-effect,” categorically excluded, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4231 et seq. ). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for public review.

The applicant has an existing 20-year ITP that was issued on February 12, 2016, authorizing take of sand skinks via the conversion of an unspecified amount of the species' occupied foraging and sheltering habitat within 1,183.62 acres that is part of a 6,815.79-acre tract. The tract is located within Sections 12-13, Township 9 south, Range 23 east, Sections 7, 17-21, 28-33, Township 9 south, Range 24 east, and Sections 5-6, Township 10 south, Range 24 east in Putnam County, Florida. The parcel numbers are 07-09-24-0000-0020-0010, 12-09-23-0000-0010-0000, 13-09-23-0000-0030-0000, 17-09-24-0000-0040-0020, 17-09-24-0000-0010-0010, 18-09-24-0000-0010-0000, 18-09-24-0000-0020-0000, 19-09-24-0000-0010-0010, 19-09-24-0720-0000-0520, and 20-09-24-0000-0020-0000. The applicant proposes to expand the current project boundary from 1,183.62 acres to 1,683.86 acres, for a net increase of 500.24 acres. The amount of occupied skink habitat within the expansion area is undetermined; however, based on the current USFWS guideline, approximately 452.4 acres of the site appear to be suitable for the skink. In advance of mining operations occurring within the entire area, quantitative surveys will be conducted to determine the extent of suitable area that is occupied by the sand skink. The surveys will be conducted in accordance with the Service's then guidelines. The applicant will mitigate for take of the sand skink within the expansion area by purchasing mitigation credits at a 2:1 ratio (2 mitigation credits for every 1 acre of occupied skink habitat impacted by the project) from the Tiger Creek Conservation Bank or another Service-approved sand skink bank. The Service will require the applicant to purchase the required credits prior to engaging in activities associated with the project on occupied habitat within the expansion area.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made available to the public. While you may request that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's project, including earth moving, grading, and other land alteration and construction activities and the proposed mitigation, would individually and cumulatively have a minor or negligible effect on sand skinks and the environment. Therefore, we have preliminarily concluded that the ITP for this project would qualify for categorical exclusion and that the HCP is low effect under our NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 419.2005 and 419.2010. A low-effect HCP is one that would result in (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and, (3) impacts that, when considered together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects, would not over time result in significant cumulative effects to environmental values or resources.

The Service will evaluate the application and the comments received to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the above findings, we will determine whether the criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met to modify the existing ITP. If met, the Service will issue the modified permit, ITP number TE82956B-1, to Vulcan Materials Company.

The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.32) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6 and 43 CFR 46.305).

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The requested permits would allow the applicants to conduct activities intended to promote recovery of species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA.

With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of wildlife species listed as endangered and, by regulation, certain wildlife species listed as threatened unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” includes such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, in addition to hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing.

A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.

Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits. Accordingly, we invite local, State, Tribal, Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.