Agricultural Marketing Service
Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
Antitrust Division
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Fiscal Service
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Final rule.
This final rule removes the regulations pertaining to the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP). The regulations, which were established in 2006 as a matter of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy, are duplicative of and in conflict with the recent revisions to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Federal Financial Management's Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Consequently, the SCBGP-specific regulations are no longer needed. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is removing the obsolete regulations in order to align its grant programs with OMB requirements and implement the programs efficiently. AMS will continue to administer SCBGP according to the OMB regulations.
This rule is effective on July 26, 2021.
Nicole Nelson Miller, Grants Division Director, or Carly Borgmeier, Specialty Crop Block Grant Program Team Lead, Grants Division, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (202) 720-0188, or Email:
This final rule removes the regulations to implement the SCBGP at 7 CFR part 1291. This action conforms with recent amendments to OMB's regulations on Grants and Agreements related to reporting, oversight, and audit requirements. AMS will continue to administer Specialty Crop Block Grants according to the revised provisions of 2 CFR part 200, which became effective November 12, 2020 (85 FR 49506; August 13, 2020).
Ten grant programs are currently implemented for USDA under AMS's Transportation and Marketing Program. Eight of these grant programs are competitively bid, and two are non-competitively awarded to State agencies. The SCBGP is a non-competitive grant program mandated under section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note), and amended under section 10107 of the 2018 Farm Bill, to make grants to States to be used by State departments of agriculture to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. The SCBGP defines specialty crops as “Fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, horticulture, and nursery crops (including floriculture).”
AMS Grant Programs, which include the SCBGP, are authorized pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1621,
The regulations at 7 CFR part 1291 are duplicative of and in conflict with the updated guidance at 2 CFR part 200. Therefore, AMS is removing 7 CFR part 1291 to better align its programs with OMB's Guidance for Grants and Agreements and improve efficiency in the management of the SCBGP.
This action pertains to the making of Federal grants to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, authorizes USDA to take actions related to grants management without notice and comment rulemaking. Further, such actions may be made effective in fewer than 30 days after publication in the
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that OMB exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS certifies that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on small business entities. Neither grant recipients nor subrecipients will be impacted by this final rule.
This final rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
Agriculture, Foods, Fruits, Grant programs-agriculture, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Specialty crop block grants, State and local governments, Vegetables.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; correction.
The FAA is correcting a final rule published on December 11, 2020. In that final rule, which became effective on the date of publication, the FAA removed the regulations codifying the Special Rule for Model Aircraft as a result of a change in applicable law. The FAA inadvertently listed an incorrect amendment number for the final rule. This document corrects that error.
This correction is effective July 26, 2021.
Thea Dickerman, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-2371; email:
On December 11, 2020, the FAA published the Removal of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft final rule (85 FR 79823). After the rule was published, the FAA discovered it had listed Amdt. No. 1-73 for the changes to title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 1, instead of Amdt. No. 1-74.
A copy of the final rule may be viewed online at
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Agency generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations and publish rules not less than 30 days before their effective dates. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking or delay effective dates when the agency, for good cause, finds that the requirement is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3)). There is good cause to waive both of these requirements here as they are unnecessary, as this action merely makes a technical correction to the amendment number of a published final rule.
In FR Doc. 2020-26726 (85 FR 79823) published on December 11, 2020, the following correction is made:
1. On page 79823, in the second column, in the heading of the final rule, correct “Amdt. Nos. 1-73, 61-148, 101-10, 107-6” to read “Amdt. Nos. 1-74, 61-148, 101-10, 107-6”.
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44809, in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for various restricted category helicopters, originally manufactured by Bell Textron Inc. (Bell). This AD was prompted by multiple events involving failure of the tail boom attach structure including the bolts. This AD requires revising the existing Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) for your helicopter to incorporate pre-flight checks; removing paint and sealant, and cleaning; repetitive inspections of structural components that attach the tail boom to the fuselage; and depending on the outcome of the inspections, repairing or replacing components, or re-bonding the structure. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 30, 2021.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact: U.S. Army Materiel Command Logistics Data Analysis Center (USAMC LDAC), ATTN: Equipment Publication Control Officers (EPCOs), Building 3305, Redeye Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-7466; phone (256) 955-7716 or 1-866-211-3367; email
You may also contact the following, as applicable:
JJASPP Engineering Services, LLC, 511 Harmon Terrace, Arlington, TX 76010; phone: (817) 465-4495; website:
Northwest Rotorcraft, LLC, 1000 85th Ave. SE, Olympia, WA 98501; phone: (360) 754-7200; website:
Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc., P.O. Box 898, Lakeside, AZ 85929; phone (928) 368-6965; fax (928) 368-6962.
Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc., 1181 Osprey Nest Point, Orange Park, FL 32073.
Rotorcraft Development Corporation, P.O. Box 430, Corvallis, MT 59828; phone: (207) 329-2518; email:
Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc., 28000-A9 Airport Road, Bldg. 101, Punta Gorda, FL 33982-9587.
Tamarack Helicopters Inc, 2849 McIntyre Rd, Stevensville, MT 59870; phone: (406) 777-0144; website:
WSH, LLC, 3255 S. Bodenburg LP, Palmer, AK 99645.
You may view the related service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Richard R. Thomas, Aerospace Engineer, Denver ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 26805 East 68th Ave., Room 214, Denver, CO 80249; phone: (303) 342-1080; fax: (303) 342-1088; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Model EH-1H, EH-1X, HH-1H, HH-1N, UH-1D, UH-1M, UH-1N, and UH-1V helicopters operating under experimental airworthiness certificates; and restricted category type certificated Model HH-1K, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B without Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No. SR00026DE installed, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1H, UH-1L, and UH-1P helicopters.
The NPRM listed the type certificate holders for these restricted category models as Arrow Falcon Exporters Inc.; AST, Inc.; Bell; California Department of Forestry; Global Helicopter Technology, Inc.; Hagglund Helicopters, LLC; International Helicopters, Inc.; JJASPP Engineering Services, LLC; JTBAM, Inc.; Northwest Rotorcraft, LLC; Red Tail Flying Services, LLC; Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc.; Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; San Joaquin Helicopters; Smith Helicopters; Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc.; Tamarack Helicopters, Inc., and West Coast Fabrications.
The NPRM published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing RFM for your helicopter to incorporate pre-flight checks; removing paint and sealant, and cleaning structural components that attach the tail boom to the fuselage; repetitive inspections of the cleaned structural components; repairing scratches, nicks, gouges, tears, and corrosion within allowable limits; replacing structural components with non-repairable damage, cracks, buckling, or distortion; removing loose, missing, or smoking rivets from service; re-bonding structures with dis-bonds; and removing loose bolts and self-locking nuts from service and replacing them with new bolts and new self-locking nuts. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent separation of the tail boom from the helicopter, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
In September 2013, a tail boom separated from a UH-1B helicopter engaged in logging operations, resulting in a fatal accident. The FAA notes that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Final Report for that accident identified the probable cause as fatigue failure of the upper two tail boom attach points, which resulted in the tail boom separating from the fuselage during logging operations.
The FAA issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) SW-18-29 (SAIB SW-18-29) on October 1, 2018 to alert owners and operators of restricted category Bell Model HH-1K, UH-1A, UH-1B, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1H, UH-1L, UH-1P, TH-1F, and TH-1L helicopters to failure of the tail boom attach structure. SAIB SW-18-29 recommends adhering to the helicopter's Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, which includes a repetitive 100 hour time-in-service (TIS) inspection of the tail boom attach structure on both sides of the four attach points and recommends keeping the fittings on both sides of all four attach points, the cap angles running forward from the fuselage side fitting, and the longerons running aft from the tail boom side fitting, clean and free of paint and any non-faying sealant; and inspecting for cracks in the attach structure with a borescope.
The FAA revised SAIB SW-18-29 to SAIB SW-18-29R1, dated February 19, 2019 (SAIB SW-18-29R1), to alert all owners and operators to clarified paint and sealant removal procedures and simplify the wording of recommendations to provide clarity.
Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the FAA determined it is necessary to add notes in the applicability to clarify that Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc. Model SW204 and SW204HP helicopters are Model UH-1B helicopters, and Model SW205 helicopters are Model UH-1H helicopters. These notes have been added to clarify the Model SW204, SW204HP, and SW205 designations used by Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc.
The FAA also made edits to clarify that an owner/operator (pilot) may perform the required checks and must enter compliance with the applicable paragraph of the AD into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform these checks because they involve only visual checks and can be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. These checks are an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations.
Also, the FAA has learned of military design improvements of the UH-1H over previous variants, and further analysis of these design improvements prompted extending the inspection intervals for the UH-1H and SW205 helicopters when compared to Model HH-1K, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B without STC No. SR00026DE installed, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1L, and UH-1P helicopters.
Additionally, since the NPRM was issued, the type certificate held by San Joaquin Helicopters is now held by WSH, LLC, and the type certificate held by JTBAM INC., is now held by Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc. This final rule reflects these changes and updates the contact information to that of the new type certificate holders.
Since the NPRM was published, the FAA has also removed all helicopter models operating under experimental airworthiness certificates from this final rule. The FAA has chosen to minimize regulations on experimental aircraft that do not have an FAA type certificate because of the level of the safety risk on the individual helicopter.
Further, since the NPRM was published, the FAA has removed the wording, “39-inch extended landing gear installed per STC SR01742NY”
The
Finally, as mentioned in the NPRM, the FAA still plans to conduct additional rulemaking to address Model UH-1B helicopters with STC No. SR00026DE installed.
After the NPRM was published, the FAA received comments from four commenters. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comments.
Aircraft Structural Repair, Inc., supported the NPRM.
An individual commenter requested the FAA provide a list of active short fuselage models and expressed concern about availability of replacement parts.
The FAA estimates the U.S fleet of short fuselage models at 75 helicopters based on data provided by Bell and a review of FAA aircraft registration records. Specific short fuselage models included in this estimate are HH-1K, SW204, SW204HP, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B without STC No. SR00026DE installed, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1L, and UH-1P helicopters. It is possible spare parts may not be readily available to replace parts that fail the inspection requirements of this AD; however, the FAA cannot base its AD action on whether spare parts are readily available or available at all. While every effort is made to avoid grounding aircraft, the FAA must address the unsafe condition.
An individual commenter requested the FAA provide information on whether a similar AD is being considered for Bell Model 204B helicopters.
The FAA is reviewing data to determine if this unsafe condition exists on additional helicopter models and may consider additional rulemaking if necessary.
One commenter asked if the forced landings cited in SAIB SW-18-29R1 involved UH-1H helicopters and if these helicopters had the following STCs installed: SR01196LA, SR00929SE, SR01470SE, or SR02051LA. The commenter stated these STCs add extra horsepower and tail rotor authority. The commenter requested information on whether a combination of these STCs allow the tail rotor control authority to exceed the structural limitations of the tail boom attach fittings in response to sharp tail rotor control inputs.
One of the helicopters forced to land as described in SAIB SW-18-29R1 was a UH-1H helicopter. Another helicopter was a UH-1F, which is a variant of the UH-1B. The UH-1H had all four of the mentioned STCs installed at the time of the forced landing. The data reviewed by the FAA indicates the cause of the failure mode is fatigue. These STCs alone or in combination may increase tail boom loads but those load increases would only marginally increase the rate at which the tail boom attach structure fatigues. The inspection intervals mandated in this AD take into account this marginal increase in the rate of fatigue. The FAA is not aware of any data that the occasional increased loads associated with these STCs would lead directly to an exceedance of structural margins in the absence of fatigue.
An individual commenter requested the FAA remove Model HH-1N and UH-1N helicopters from the applicability paragraph of this AD stating these models have “a completely different tail boom longeron and attach fitting.”
The FAA agrees these models have a different tail boom attach structure than the other models listed in the applicability. These models have been removed from this AD.
Northwest Helicopters requested the FAA change the applicability to remove all Model UH-1 series helicopters operating under experimental exhibition (EE) airworthiness certificates and requested the FAA limit the applicability to those models operating under restricted category “repetitive heavy lift operations” or those having more than 20 cycles per hour. Northwest Helicopters states it is unaware of any tail boom attach point failure on any EE Model UH-1H helicopters.
The FAA agrees with the request to remove helicopters with an experimental category airworthiness certificate from the applicability. All helicopters with an experimental category airworthiness certificate have been removed from the applicability of this AD. The FAA has chosen to minimize regulations on experimental aircraft that do not have an FAA type certificate. Nonetheless, the FAA recommends that operators of Model UH-1 series helicopters that are listed in the applicability and do not have a type certificate comply with this AD. The FAA disagrees with limiting the applicability to those models operating under restricted category “repetitive heavy lift operations” or those having more than 20 cycles per hour. The FAA is not aware of any data indicating that tail boom attachment failures only occur on helicopters engaging in repetitive heavy lift operations or those having more than 20 cycles per hour.
One commenter requested the FAA add Bell Information Letter, GEN-18-138, Revision A, dated August 9, 2018 (GEN-18-138), to this AD when discussing replacement of tail boom attaching bolts. The commenter explained GEN-18-138 notifies owners and operators that Bell recently superseded self-locking nuts part number (P/N) MS21042.
The FAA partially agrees. The FAA agrees that Bell superseded the original series of self-locking nuts on Model HH-1K, SW204, SW204HP, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B without STC No. SR00026DE installed, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1L, and UH-1P helicopters according to information provided by Bell to the FAA. Self-locking nut P/N NAS9926-7L supersedes the original self-locking nut P/N NAS679A7 for the upper LH attach point and self-locking nut P/N NAS679A7 supersedes the original self-locking nut P/N NAS679A6 for the other three attach points. The required actions section of this AD has been revised to require the installation of self-locking nut P/N NAS9926-7L or P/N NAS9926-6L whenever an attach bolt is replaced. The FAA disagrees that GEN-18-138 addresses the self-locking nuts on helicopter models affected by this AD. The original self-locking nuts mentioned in GEN-18-138 do not include the original self-locking nuts on the helicopter models affected by this AD.
One commenter requested that the FAA limit the requirement to use a borescope for inspection to certain helicopters models with baggage compartments.
The FAA disagrees. The FAA inspected a Model UH-1H helicopter without a baggage compartment and determined that while all of the fuselage side attach structure is visible and within arm's reach, the tail boom side attach structure is not. Furthermore, due to the equipment in the fuselage side oil cooler bay and the confined space in the tail boom, accessing the tail boom side structure is difficult. Also, the upper right hand tail boom side attach structure is located behind a tail rotor pitch control rod. These factors make it difficult to perform a thorough inspection with only a mirror and magnification.
Northwest Helicopters requested the FAA adjust the inspection intervals to correlate with existing AD inspection intervals to simplify the maintenance program for restricted category helicopters other than “repetitive heavy lift” Model UH-1 series helicopters. Northwest Helicopters stated a current AD requires inspection of the main rotor blades for cracks before further flight and every 14 days or 25 hours TIS, whichever occurs first. Northwest Helicopters stated that adopting the same intervals would allow both ADs to be completed at the same time to provide convenience.
The FAA disagrees with the request to change the compliance time for inspections required by this final rule to be consistent with the compliance times for inspections required by AD 2018-02-07, Amendment 39-19160 (83 FR 2361, January 17, 2018) (AD 2018-02-07). AD 2018-02-07 requires an initial inspection within 25 hours TIS or 2 weeks, whichever occurs first. Thereafter, AD 2018-02-07 requires repetitive inspections within 25 hours TIS or 2 weeks, whichever occurs first. This final rule requires an initial inspection within 25 hours TIS, without a calendar time requirement. Thereafter, this final rule requires repetitive inspections for certain helicopters within 25 hours TIS. Owners or operators may choose to perform the inspections required by this AD at 2 week intervals provided the inspections occur within the 25 hours TIS required by this AD.
One individual stated an intent to submit several UH-1H modifications as an AMOC explaining the modifications are less likely to fail than the original structure.
The FAA agrees that the public may submit AMOC requests to the FAA in accordance with 14 CFR 39.19.
One individual requested that the FAA consider the installation of a modified upper LH fitting tail boom attach fitting on various model helicopters per U.S. Army “Modification Work Order (MWO 55-1520-211-40/1)” as an AMOC, stating the modified attach fitting is less likely to fail than the original fitting and no reported failures were noted for tail booms modified per MWO 55-1520211-40/1. A second individual questioned whether MWO 55-1520-211-40/1 would be considered as an AMOC.
The FAA disagrees that an upper LH fitting modified in accordance with MWO 55-1520-211-40/1 addresses this unsafe condition. The FAA reviewed Letter Report, Product Improvement Test of UH-1B Tail Boom Fitting, RDT&E Project No. None, USATECOM Project No. 4-5-0101-04, dated June 29, 1966, which contains an evaluation of MWO 55-1520-211-40/1. The FAA determined that the average total cycles accumulated on UH-1B helicopters affected by this AD substantially exceeds the Army evaluation test cycles. Therefore, the FAA concluded MWO 55-1520-211-40/1 does not adequately address the unsafe condition.
An individual commenter requested the FAA withdraw the NPRM. The commenter explained that issuing this AD would add an unnecessary burden to operators with a negligible increase in safety and the AD is unnecessary based on the series of accidents and incidents discussed in the NPRM. The commenter stated helicopters that are operated within their operating limits and properly maintained are unlikely to experience an inflight failure before cracks are detected because of existing inspection guidance. The commenter also stated that in the two accidents cited by the FAA, the helicopter was operated in an area not conducive to proper maintenance and was engaged in logging operations, which the commenter asserts are known for exceeding the helicopter's torque and weight limitations.
The FAA disagrees with the request to withdraw the NPRM. The FAA has concluded the existing maintenance instructions lack sufficient detail to minimize the risk of an in-flight failure of the tail boom attach structure. Further, the FAA finds the need to mandate inspections through issuance of an AD to correct the unsafe condition identified in this final rule.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously. These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM. The FAA also determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of this AD.
The FAA reviewed portions of the following related service information:
• Headquarters, Department of the Army, Aviation Unit and Intermediate Maintenance Instructions Model UH-1H/V/EH-1H/X Helicopters, Technical Manual TM 55-1520-210-23-1, Change 42, dated April 14, 2003. This service information contains tail boom hoisting/handling instructions; hard landing, tail rotor blade strike, and sudden stoppage due to compressor stall tail boom inspection requirements; tail boom removal and installation instructions including attach bolt installation and tightening instructions, tail boom attach fitting inspection instructions, tail boom and fuselage attach fitting bolt hole wear limits, allowable tail boom attach fitting damage and corrosion repair instructions; loose attach fitting fastener inspection and replacement instructions; tail boom attach fitting replacement instructions; classification of damage as negligible, repairable or requiring replacement for tail boom structure including rivets, fasteners, tail boom attach fittings, stringers, and longerons; tail boom structural material specifications; allowable area for damage repair of tail boom attach fittings; longeron damage limits and repair criteria; and stringer repair instructions.
• Headquarters, Department of the Army, Aviation Unit Maintenance and Aviation Intermediate Maintenance Manual for General Aircraft Maintenance (Sheet Metal Shop Practices) Volume 10, Technical Manual TM 1-1500-204-23-10, Change 3, dated August 20, 2004. This service information contains general information pertaining to the repair of aircraft structures, structural metals,
• Headquarters, Department of the Army, Rotorcraft Development Corporation, UH-1B Aircraft Preventive Maintenance Services, Technical Manual TM 55-1520-219-PMS, Change 7, dated August 9, 1976. This service information contains requirements to inspect the tail boom attach bolts for security and the fittings for cracks daily and every 25, 50, 75, and 100 flight hours; and to inspect the tail boom interior structure and longerons for damage, cracks, and corrosion every 100 flight hours.
• Headquarters, Department of the Army, UH-1B DS and GS Maintenance Manual, Technical Manual TM 55-1520-219-34, Change 9, dated June 5, 1972. This service information contains instructions to remove and install the tail boom; attach bolt exposed thread limits; attach bolt tightening instructions with instructions for manufacturing a special torque wrench extension; allowable tail boom attach fitting hole diameters; damage classifications for tail boom skin, stringers and longerons as negligible, reparable by patching, reparable by insertion, or damage necessitating replacement; and instructions for field manufacture of P/N 204-030-800-443, Tail Boom Assembly Cover.
• Headquarters, Department of the Army, UH-1H/V and EH-1H/X Aircraft Phased Maintenance Checklist, Technical Manual TM 55-1520-210-PM, Change 22, dated May 8, 2002. This service information contains phased inspection requirements for the tail boom interior and fuselage heater compartment to check for damage, cracks, and corrosion.
• Headquarters, Department of the Army, UH-1H/V and EH-1H/X Aircraft Preventative Maintenance Daily Inspection Checklist, Technical Manual TM 55-1520-210-PMD, Change 11, dated April 11, 2003. This service information contains preventative daily maintenance instructions to be accomplished prior to the first flight of the day to inspect for loose or missing rivets, the tail boom attachment bolts for security, and tail boom attachment fittings and longerons up to 12 inches from the fittings for cracks.
• U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command Depot Maintenance Work Requirement DMWR 55-1560-222, All H-1Series Tailboom Structural Assemblies, Change 6, dated June 18, 2002. This service information contains descriptions of the tail boom structure and guidance explaining tail boom attach fitting structural loads; tail boom differences between helicopter models; required depot level modifications; tail boom structure isometric figures identifying the structural components; instructions to inspect the tail boom longerons for dents, cracks, holes, tears, corrosion, and distortion; longeron repair limits and repair instructions; instructions to inspect attach fittings for cracks and hole elongation; attach fitting repair limits and repair instructions; tail boom attach fitting deburr before bonding to longeron instructions; and a requirement to dye penetrant inspect the tail boom attach fittings.
For additional information about related service information, please see the published NPRM.
This AD requires the pre-flight tail boom attachment check be performed with a flashlight and the initial and recurring inspections be performed with a bright light and borescope. The service information does not specify any items to assist with the required checks or inspections. This AD requires pushing on the tail boom while performing certain inspections. The service information does not. On the fuselage side, this AD requires paying particular attention to the fitting sections near the rivets closest to the attach bolt, and the cap angle rivets next to the fittings. On the tail boom side, this AD requires paying particular attention to the fitting sections near the rivets closest to the attach bolt. The service information does not single out these fitting sections. This AD requires removing any cracked components from service, while the service information allows stop drilling of certain cracks. This AD requires removing any loose attach bolts and their self-locking nuts from service and replacing them with new bolts and new self-locking nuts. The service information does not require replacement of any loose attach bolts.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 359 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
Revising the existing RFM for your helicopter takes about 0.5 work-hour, for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $15,437 for the U.S. fleet. The pre-flight check before each flight takes about 0.25 work-hour, for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter per check and $7,539 for the U.S. fleet per check. The pre-flight check before first flight of the day takes about 0.5 work-hour, for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter per check and $15,437 for the U.S. fleet per check.
Removing excess paint and sealant, and cleaning all eight tail boom attach fittings takes about 5 work-hours and has a nominal materials cost, for an estimated cost of $425 per helicopter per instance and $152,575 for the U.S. fleet per instance.
Inspecting all four tail boom attach points for scratches, nicks, gouges, tears, corrosion, cracks, bond separation, loose, missing, and smoking rivets, buckling, distortion, attach bolt exposed threads, and attach bolt movement takes about 4 work-hours, for an estimated cost of $340 per helicopter per inspection and $122,060 for the U.S. fleet per inspection.
Inspecting only the upper LH tail boom attach point for scratches, nicks, gouges, tears, corrosion, cracks, bond separation, loose, missing, and smoking rivets, buckling, distortion, attach bolt exposed threads, and attach bolt movement takes about 0.5 work-hour, for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter per inspection.
The FAA cannot estimate the costs to do any allowable repair based on the results of the inspections and the FAA has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need repair.
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements based on the results of the inspections. The FAA has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need these replacements.
• Replacing a tail boom attach fitting takes about 33 work-hours and parts cost about $1,500 for an estimated cost of $4,305.
• Replacing a tail boom attach fitting, longeron, and doubler (longeron bond assembly) takes about 42 work-hours and parts cost about $7,000 (rebuilt) or $21,270 (new) for an estimated cost of $10,570 (rebuilt) or $24,840 (new parts).
• Replacing a fuselage attach fitting takes about 45 work-hours and parts cost about $1,838 for an estimated cost of $5,663.
• Replacing a fuselage cap angle takes about 42 work-hours and parts cost about $1,827 for an estimated cost of $5,397.
• Replacing an attach bolt and self-locking nut takes about 1 work-hour and parts cost about $313 for an estimated cost of $398.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 30, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to various restricted category helicopters originally manufactured by Bell Textron Inc., (Bell) certificated in any category, including but not limited to:
(1) Rotorcraft Development Corporation Model HH-1K helicopters;
(2) Robinson Air Crane Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; and Tamarack Helicopters, Inc., Model TH-1F helicopters;
(3) Bell; Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc. (type certificate previously held by JTBAM, Inc.); and Rotorcraft Development Corporation Model TH-1L helicopters;
(4) Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc., Model UH-1A helicopters;
(5) International Helicopters, Inc.; Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc.; Red Tail Flying Services, LLC; Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc.; and WSH, LLC (type certificate previously held by San Joaquin Helicopters), Model UH-1B helicopters without Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No. SR00026DE installed;
(6) Bell; Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; Smith Helicopters; and West Coast Fabrications Model UH-1E helicopters;
(7) AST, Inc.; California Department of Forestry; Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; and Tamarack Helicopters, Inc., Model UH-1F helicopters;
(8) Arrow Falcon Exporters Inc.; Global Helicopter Technology, Inc.; Hagglund Helicopters, LLC; JJASPP Engineering Services, LLC; Northwest Rotorcraft, LLC; Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc.; Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc.; and Tamarack Helicopters, Inc., Model UH-1H helicopters;
(9) Bell; Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc.; and Rotorcraft Development Corporation Model UH-1L helicopters; and
(10) Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; and Rotorcraft Development Corporation Model UH-1P helicopters.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC): 5302, Rotorcraft Tail Boom.
This AD was prompted by multiple events involving failure of the tail boom attach structure, including the bolts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking of tail boom attach fittings, cap angles, longerons, and bolts. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in separation of the tail boom from the helicopter and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Before further flight, revise the limitations section of the existing Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) for your helicopter by adding the information in Figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD or by inserting a copy of this AD. The action required by this paragraph and the checks required by Figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD may be done by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD by following 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1) through (4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(2) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS):
(i) Open the oil cooler/baggage compartment door on the right hand side of the helicopter to gain access to the interior of the tail boom.
(ii) Remove paint and stray sealant and clean the eight attach fittings (four on the tail boom side and four on the fuselage side). Remove paint and stray sealant and clean the four cap angles, forward of the fuselage fittings, for at least 12 inches from the end of the fittings. Remove paint and stray sealant and clean the four longerons, aft of the tail
(iii) With an additional person pushing on the tail boom at the third vertical rivet line aft of the trailing edge of the elevator with both hands and gradually applying and relieving pressure using body weight a minimum of three times in each of the following directions: Inboard pushing from the left; inboard pushing from the right; and upward pushing from the bottom; and using a bright light and borescope, inspect each of the four tail boom attach structures for cracks, bond separation, and loose rivets. On the fuselage side, inspect the fittings and the cap angles running forward from the fittings, paying particular attention to the fitting sections near the rivets closest to the attach bolts and the cap angle rivets next to the fittings. On the tail boom side, inspect the fittings and the longerons running aft from the fittings, paying particular attention to the fitting sections near the rivets closest to the attach bolts. Without pushing on the tail boom, and using a bright light and borescope, inspect each of the four tail boom attach structures for scratches, nicks, gouges, tears, corrosion, buckling, and distortion, and for loose, missing, and smoking rivets. If there are any scratches, nicks, gouges, tears, or corrosion within allowable limits, before further flight, repair the affected components. If there are any scratches, nicks, gouges, tears, or corrosion that exceed allowable limits, or any cracks, buckling or distortion, or loose, missing, or smoking rivets, before further flight, remove the affected components from service. If there is any bond separation, before further flight, re-bond the affected components.
(iv) Inspect each of the four tail boom attach bolts for exposed threads. If there is less than one full thread or more than three threads exposed, before further flight, remove the bolt and self-locking nut from service and replace with a new bolt and new self-locking nut. Self-locking nuts on Model HH-1K, SW204, SW204HP, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B without STC No. SR00026DE installed, and Model UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1L, and UH-1P helicopters must be replaced with self-locking nut part number (P/N) NAS9926-7L at the upper left-hand (LH) attach point and self-locking nut P/N NAS9926-6L at the other three attach points.
(v) Inspect each of the four tail boom attach bolts for movement by either applying the required installation torque in the tightening direction only, or by inspecting for torque stripe misalignment if present and attempting to rotate the bolt by hand. If a bolt is under-torqued, a torque stripe is misaligned, or a bolt moves, before further flight, remove the bolt and self-locking nut from service and replace with a new bolt and new self-locking nut. Self-locking nuts on Model HH-1K, SW204, SW204HP, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B without STC No. SR00026DE installed, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1L, and UH-1P helicopters must be replaced with self-locking nut P/N NAS9926-7L at the upper LH attach point and self-locking nut P/N NAS9926-6L at the other three attach points.
(vi) After the first flight following any bolt replacement as required by paragraph (g)(iv) or (v) of this AD, retorque any replaced bolt by applying torque in accordance with the existing maintenance instructions for your helicopter in the tightening direction only and then apply a torque stripe on the bolt head.
(3) For Model HH-1K, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B without STC No. SR00026DE installed, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1L, and UH-1P helicopters and Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc. Model SW204 and SW204HP helicopters, at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, perform the actions required by paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this AD, except you are only required to perform the actions on the upper LH tail boom attach structure including the bolt.
(4) For Model HH-1K, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B without STC No. SR00026DE installed, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1L, and UH-1P helicopters and Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc. Model SW204 and SW204HP helicopters, at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, perform the actions required by paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this AD at all four tail boom attach points.
(5) For Model UH-1H helicopters and Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc. Model SW205 helicopters, at intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS, perform the actions required by paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this AD on all four tail boom attach points.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Denver ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Richard R. Thomas, Aerospace Engineer, Denver ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 26805 East 68th Ave., Room 214, Denver, CO 80249; phone: (303) 342-1080; fax: (303) 342-1088; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-9, V-63, V-100, V-158, and V-171; amends Area Navigation (RNAV) route T-325; and removes VOR Federal airway V-127 in the vicinity of Rockford, IL. The air traffic service (ATS) route modifications are necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Rockford, IL, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigational aid (NAVAID). Except for RNAV route T-325, the Rockford VOR/DME NAVAID provides navigation guidance for portions of the affected routes listed above. The Rockford VOR is being decommissioned as part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Effective date 0901 UTC, October 7, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2020-1100 in the
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend RNAV route T-325 by removing the Terre Haute VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and replacing it with the JIBKA, IN, waypoint (WP) and then extending the route northward from the JIBKA, IN, WP to the Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC. The proposed RNAV route T-325 description in the regulatory text section of the NPRM inadvertently listed the RENRO, KY, route point as a FIX, in error. The correct reference for the RENRO, KY, route point should have reflected it as a WP. As such, the proposed T-325 route description in the NPRM should have reflected the RENRO, KY, route point as a “WP” instead of “FIX.” This RNAV route point correction to the T-325 description is included in this action.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-9, V-63, V-100, V-158, and V-171; modifying RNAV route T-325; and removing VOR Federal airway V-127. The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Rockford, IL, VOR/DME has made this action necessary.
The VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.
The RNAV T-route changes are outlined below.
All radials in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are stated in True degrees.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory
The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal airways V-9, V-63, V-100, V-158, and V-171; modifying RNAV route T-325; and removing VOR Federal airway V-127, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Rockford, IL, VOR/DME NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Leeville, LA; McComb, MS; INT McComb 004° and Magnolia, MS, 194° radials; Magnolia; Sidon, MS; Marvell, AR; Gilmore, AR; Malden, MO; Farmington, MO; St. Louis, MO; Spinner, IL; to Pontiac, IL. From Janesville, WI; Madison, WI; Oshkosh, WI; Green Bay, WI; Iron Mountain, MI; to Houghton, MI.
From Razorback, AR; Springfield, MO; Hallsville, MO; Quincy, IL; Burlington, IA; Moline, IL; to Davenport, IA. From Janesville, WI; Badger, WI; to Oshkosh, WI. From Wausau, WI; Rhinelander, WI; to Houghton, MI. Excluding that airspace at and above10,000 feet MSL from 5 NM north to 46 NM north of Quincy, IL, when the Howard West MOA is active.
From Medicine Bow, WY; Scottsbluff, NE; Alliance, NE; Ainsworth, NE; to O'Neill, NE. From Fort Dodge, IA; Waterloo, IA; to Dubuque, IA. From Northbrook, IL; INT Northbrook 095° and Keeler, MI, 271° radials; Keeler; to Litchfield, MI.
From Mason City, IA; INT Mason City 106° and Dubuque, IA, 293° radials; Dubuque; Polo, IL; to INT Polo 122° and Davenport, IA, 087° radials. The airspace within R-3302 is excluded.
From Lexington, KY; INT Lexington 251° and Louisville, KY, 114° radials; Louisville; Terre Haute, IN; Danville, IL; Peotone, IL; INT Peotone 281° and Joliet, IL, 173° radials; to Joliet. From Nodine, MN; INT Nodine 298° and Farmington, MN, 124° radials; Farmington; Darwin, MN; Alexandria, MN; INT Alexandria 321° and Grand Forks, ND, 152° radials; Grand Forks; to Roseau, MN.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Area Navigation (RNAV) route Q-29 in the northeastern United States in support of the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route Project (NEC ACR) for improved efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) while reducing the dependency on ground based navigational systems.
Effective date 0901 UTC, October 7, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Sean Hook, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it expands the availability of RNAV routes in the NAS, increases airspace capacity, and reduces complexity in high air traffic volume areas.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2020-1147 in the
United States area navigation routes are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV routes listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020 and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend Q-29, in the northeastern United States to support the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route Project. In the proposal, the FAA incorrectly stated the name of the WP to be moved as DUNOM; the correct reference to the WP moving 1.26 NM east to the United States/Canada border is DUNMO, ME, WP.
Additionally, the FAA referenced the wrong paragraph where United States area navigation routes are published. The correct reference is paragraph 2006 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020,
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying Q-29, in the northeastern United States to support the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route Project.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this airspace action of amending 14 CFR part 71 by modifying RNAV route Q-29 in the northeastern United States to support the NEC ACR for improved efficiency of the NAS, while reducing the dependency on ground based navigational systems, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies three existing high altitude area navigation (RNAV) routes (Q-routes), and establishes one new Q-route, in support of the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route (NEC ACR) Project. This action improves the efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) by expanding the availability of RNAV routing and reducing the dependency on ground-based navigational systems.
Effective date 0901 UTC, October 7, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2021-0250 in the
United States area navigation routes are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV route listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending three existing Q-routes, and establishing one new Q-route in the northeastern United States to support the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route project. The new route is designated Q-419, and amendments made to the descriptions of Q-22, Q-54, and Q-64.
The Q-route amendments are as follows:
The new Q-route is as follows:
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this airspace action of modifying three existing high altitude area navigation (RNAV) routes (Q-routes), and establishing one new Q-route, in support of the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route (NEC ACR) Project, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth at El Capitan Lodge, Craig, AK. This action accommodates a new area navigation (RNAV) procedure and ensures the safety and management of instrument flight rule (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.
Effective 0901 UTC, October 7, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-2245.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth to support IFR operations at El Capitan Lodge, Craig, AK.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at El Capitan Lodge, Craig, AK. This action is associated with a seaplane base, and therefore, the Class E airspace is established extending upward from 700 feet above ground level (AGL) within a 2-mile radius of the airport's sea lane versus the Lodge. In addition, airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL is established 1.9 miles each side of the 353° bearing from a point-in-space, coordinates lat. 55°58′6″ N, long. 133°15′59″ W, extending from the 2-mile radius to 8.5 miles north. This area provides controlled airspace for aircraft as they descend below 1,500 feet AGL. The airspace extending upward from 700 feet also includes the area 2 miles each side of the 232° bearing from the point-in-space extending from the 2-mile radius to 4 miles southwest. This area would provide controlled airspace for the missed approach procedure.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 2-mile radius from a point in space lat. 55°58′6″ N, long. 133°15′59″ W, and that airspace 1.9 miles each side of the 353° bearing from the point in space extending from the 2-mile radius to 8.5 miles north from the point in space and that airspace 2 miles each side of the 232° bearing from the point in space extending from the 2-mile radius to 4 miles southwest from the point in space.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Area Navigation (RNAV) route Q-437 in the northeastern United States in support of the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route Project (NEC ACR) for improve efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) while reducing the dependency on ground based navigational systems.
Effective date 0901 UTC, October 7, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Sean Hook, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the VOR Federal airway route structure in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2020-1081 in the
United States area navigation routes are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV route listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing RNAV route Q-437 in the northeastern United States in support of the NEC ACR for improve efficiency of the NAS while reducing the dependency on ground based navigational systems.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine
The FAA has determined that this airspace action of establishing RNAV Q-437 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends VOR Federal airways V-39 and V-93 in support of the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route (NEC ACR), and the VOR Minimum Operational Network (VOR MON) Projects.
Effective date 0901 UTC, October 7, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the VOR Federal airway route structure in the northeastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2021-0360 in the
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
This action amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020 and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-39 and V-93 in the northeast United States. The route changes are described as follows:
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this action only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal airways V-39 and V-93, in the northeastern United States qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Sandhills, NC, South Boston, VA; Gordonsville, VA; INT Gordonsville 331° and Martinsburg, WV, 216° radials; Martinsburg; Lancaster, PA; East Texas, PA; Sparta, NJ; Carmel, NY; INT Carmel 045° and Bridgeport, CT, 343° radials; INT Bridgeport 343° and Chester, MA, 223° radials; to Chester, MA. From Augusta, ME; Millinocket, ME; Presque Isle, ME; to Mont Joli, PQ, Canada, excluding the portion within Canada.
From Patuxent River, MD, INT Patuxent 013° and Baltimore, MD, 122° radials; Baltimore; INT Baltimore 004° and Lancaster, PA, 214° radials; Lancaster; Wilkes-Barre, PA; to INT Wilkes-Barre 037° and Sparta, NJ 300° radials. From INT Sparta 018° and Kingston, NY, 270° radials; Kingston; Pawling, NY; to Chester, MA.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation on the Tennessee River from MM 648 to 650 on August 1, 2021 from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. This special local regulation is needed to protect
This rule is effective from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on August 1, 2021.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email MST1 Nicholas Jones, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 615-736-5421, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this regulation by August 1, 2021, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that there are safety concers for the participants of the K-Town on the River Triathlon due to the normal influx of both commercial and recreactional vessel traffic. This rule is needed to protect participants for the duration of the swim portion of the event.
This rule establishes a special local regulation from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. on August 1, 2021. The special local regulation will cover all navigable waters from mile 648 to 650 on the Tennessee River. The duration of the zone is intended to protect participants of the K-Town on the river triathlon. No vessel or person or vessel, other than the participants, will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size location, and duration of the zone. Vessel traffic will be limited for a four hour duration on one day.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting only 4 hours that will prohibit entry from mile 648 to 650 on the Tennessee River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] and L[63a] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by phone at 502-779-5422. Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the designated representative.
(3) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area through advanced notice via broadcast notice to mariners.
(c)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is changing the operating schedule that governs the Seaboard System Railroad Bridge, across the Okeechobee Waterway, mile 28.2, at Indiantown, FL. This change will allow the swing bridge to be remotely operated, change the start and end times for advance notification for an opening during the overnight hours and update the name of the bridge.
This rule is effective August 25, 2021.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Omar Beceiro, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Miami Waterways Management Division, telephone 305-535-4317, email
On March 5, 2021, the Coast Guard published a Test Deviation, with a request for comments, entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway, Indiantown, FL,” in the
On April 12, 2021, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway, Indiantown, FL,” in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The Seaboard System Railroad Bridge across the Okeechobee Waterway, mile 28.2, at Indiantown, FL, is a swing bridge with a seven-foot vertical clearance at mean high water in the closed position. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational. The operating schedule for the bridge is set forth in 33 CFR 117.317(e).
The rule allows the swing bridge to be remotely monitored and operated. The
This change allows vessels that are capable of transiting under the bridge, without an opening, to do so at any time and vessels are able to transit the bridge when advanced notice is given. Vessels in distress and public vessels of the United States must be allowed to pass at any time.
The one comment received did not object to the rule change but provided suggestions in addition to the proposed rule change. The commenter felt the bridge should remain open until 6 p.m. before shifting to the three hour advanced notice for an opening. The rule allows the bridge to shift to the three hour advanced notice at 7 p.m. until 7 a.m. daily. The commenter would like signage to be placed at unspecified locations along the waterway approximately one mile before the bridge. Per the commenter, this would greatly reduce congestion in the narrow channel at the bridge when in the closed position. Contact information for the bridge is found in 33 CFR 117.317(e) and posted on the bridge per Federal drawbridge regulations. Additional posting requirements, not in accordance Federal drawbridge regulations, are outside the Coast Guard's authority. The Coast Guard provided the bridge owner, CSX Transportation, with this recommendation from the commenter for consideration.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice and vessels that can transit under the bridge without an opening may do so at anytime.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received zero comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule may affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction or you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(e)
(1) The swing bridge is not tendered locally, but will be monitored and operated by a remote operator.
(2) Marine radio communication shall be maintained, by the remote operator, with mariners near the bridge for the safety of navigation. Visual monitoring of the waterway shall be maintained with the use of cameras. Detection sensors shall be installed for the detection of vessels entering the radius of the swing span of the bridge while in operation.
(3) From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., the bridge will be maintained in the open to navigation position and will display green lights to indicate that the span is fully open.
(4) When a train approaches, the remote operator shall monitor for vessels in the vicinity of the bridge. Provided the sensors do not detect a vessel entering the swing radius of the bridge, the operator shall initiate the closing sequence, which includes the sounding of a horn. The span will remain in the closed position for the entire time the track circuit is occupied displaying red lights.
(5) After the train has cleared the track circuit, the span shall open and green lights will be displayed.
(6) From 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., the bridge will be in the closed to navigation position and will open if at least a three hour advance notice is requested via marine radio channel 9 VHF or telephone (813) 677-3974.
(7) The bridge shall not be operated from the remote location in the following events: Failure or obstruction of the detection sensors, remote actuation systems, cameras, or marine radio communications, or when directed by the Coast Guard. In these situations, a bridge operator must be on-site and locally operate the bridge.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is amending the operating schedule that governs the Canadian National Railroad Bridge, mile 55.72, across the Fox River to operate remotely. The request was made by the bridge owner. This rule re-establishes remote operations of the bridge and will not change the operating schedule of the bridge.
This rule is effective August 25, 2021.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email
In 2010 we published a NPRM to solicit comments concerning allowing the Canadian National Railroad Bridge, mile 55.72 to operate remotely (75 FR 76322, December 8, 2010; USCG-2010-1029). The public requested the bridge owner to install and maintain additional warning lights. The NPRM was withdrawn because the railroad refused to install and maintain the additional warning lights the public requested (76 FR 13312, March 11, 2011). Recently, the Railroad has agreed that from April 27 through October 7 additional warning lights, specifically those alternating flashing red lights that mimic a Grade Crossing Signal commonly found at highway railroad crossing would be installed and maintained to warn mariners that the bridge was about to close. The remote operator shall also announce that the bridge is opening or closing on VHF-FM Marine Radiotelephone. The owners of the bridge shall maintain 2 board gauges in accordance with 33 CFR 118.160. The remote drawtender may be contacted by mariners at any time by radiotelephone or commercial phone number; this information shall be so posted on the bridge so that they are plainly visible to vessel operators approaching the up or downstream side of the bridge.
The current winter operating schedule requiring vessels to provide at least 12-hours advance notice for a bridge opening during the winter will remain in effect. Additionally, the clearance gauges would still be required to indicate to vessels the water levels and clearance while the bridge is in the closed position. During the comment period, a tender will be at the bridge to allow the public to observe the proposed bridge operations. We
We published a NPRM in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. This rule will allow the bridge to operate remotely and it will not change the operating schedule of the bridge. The bridge will open on signal, except when ice forms in the waterway and vessels can request an opening if a 12-hour advance notice is provided.
We carefully reviewed the comments and did not find good reason to alter the language as published in the NPRM.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice in the winter and by signal all other times.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V. A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We did not receive any comments from Indian Tribal Governments.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(c) The draw of the Canadian National Railroad Bridge at mile 55.72 shall open on signal, except from October 8 through April 26; the draw shall open if at least 12-hours advance notice is given. The bridge is authorized to be operated remotely. The owners of the bridge shall provide and keep in good legible condition two board gauges painted white with black figures to indicate the vertical clearance under the closed draw at all water levels. The gauges shall be so placed on the bridge that they are plainly visible to operators of vessels approaching the bridge either up or downstream. The bridge shall operate and maintain a VHF-FM Marine Radio. In addition to the required bridge lights, the owner's shall install and maintain alternating red lights in a horizontal line that mimic grade crossing lights and bell to warn mariners that the bridge is lowering.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Final priority and requirements.
The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority and requirements for the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are DeafBlind program, Assistance Listing Number 84.160D. The Department may use the priority and requirements for competitions in Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2021 and later years. We take this action to provide training to working interpreters in order to develop a new skill area or enhance an existing skill area. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1820-0018.
This priority and requirements are effective August 25, 2021.
Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5094, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-6103. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
(a) Training interpreters to effectively interpret and transliterate between spoken language and sign language and to transliterate between spoken language and oral or tactile modes of communication;
(b) Ensuring the maintenance of the interpreting skills of qualified interpreters; and
(c) Providing opportunities for interpreters to raise their skill level competence in order to meet the highest standards approved by certifying associations.
We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP) for this competition in the
We group major issues according to subject and discuss substantive issues under the title of the priority or requirement to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not related to the proposed priority or requirements.
Within Specialty Area (5), topic area (b), many commenters stated support for training in and awareness of protactile interpreting because it is critical for the success, autonomy, and opportunities for employment of individuals who are DeafBlind. Commenters asserted that the traditional means of communication for individuals who are DeafBlind, such as manual ASL and print-on-palm, lack the fullness and richness of expression found in protactile ASL. Three commenters stated that grantees focused on protactile ASL should commit to following evidence-based practices as a result of baseline data collected over the past five years and should recruit experienced DeafBlind language experts to assist in the formulation of the project. Another commenter referenced survey results from multiple training cohorts of Deafblind interpreters that recognized protactile interpreting as a language separate from ASL with its own grammatical rules. Finally, one commenter shared that the extreme lack of protactile interpreters has created a compounding negative effect for individuals who are DeafBlind, such as a lack of educational opportunities, isolation, and mental health issues.
In response to the commenter's suggestion that experienced DeafBlind language experts should assist in the formulation of the project, the Department notes that the priority addresses how interpreters, interpreter educators, and others will be involved in the formulation of the project. Under
We disagree with the commenter who asserted that requiring three years of experience to receive training defeats the purpose of all interpreters nationwide having the capabilities to develop specialized skills. The Department believes that interpreting experience is necessary for participants to be successful in the program. According to the National Interpreter Education Center (NIEC) Trends Report (2015), interpreter education programs generally do not produce graduates who demonstrate fluency in American Sign Language (ASL). As a result, recent graduates from interpreter training programs with little or no work experience are limited in the range of populations and settings in which they can begin to gain work experience. Two to four years of academic study of a language is generally insufficient to acquire fluency in any language, much less a modality-different language. Based on information gathered from the FY 2016 grant cycle, the success of interpreter training in specialty areas requires a solid foundation in ASL fluency and interpreting experience. The specialty areas are rigorous, and require self-discipline, commitment, and time management. Therefore, we have established that three years of experience for working interpreters is needed to demonstrate language proficiency in ASL and experience interpreting for individuals with a range of communication skills.
Finally, we agree with the comment that associate and certificate interpreter programs continue to exist and are a critical entry point for many BIPOC interpreters. Therefore, we have expanded the list of locations for information dissemination to include associate degree level ASL-English programs.
More specifically, Deaf and CODA participants in the commenter's project reported that being able to learn in their native language made learning more fun and engaging. Hearing participants reported that having the opportunity to discuss complex topics in ASL increased their language flexibility and fluency. The commenter noted that while the development of a bilingual curriculum was time consuming and costly, it led to a positive retention rate and successful outcomes.
Under this specialty area, projects may contain cultural competency training for interpreters at all skill levels and could include, for example, exploration of unconscious and conscious biases, privilege, stereotypes, prejudicial attitudes, and the dynamics of oppression on interpreters from multicultural backgrounds, as well as heritage and native signers; examination of microaggressions within the interpreter training field; and gaps, disparities, and inequities in the recruitment, education, training, testing, assessments, employment, and advancement of interpreters from minority backgrounds. The specialty area may also provide training to associate, bachelor's, and advanced degree ASL-English interpreting programs to increase and support outreach and recruitment of interpreters from multicultural backgrounds. When preparing outreach and recruitment materials, selection criteria for training programs, and criteria for selecting trainers employed under the grant, applicants must cast a wide net for participants of all races and not preclude participation based on race, color, or national origin.
We are removing language about the project outcomes from the priority because we have modified and incorporated this data into the performance measures, which will be included in the NIA for this program. The performance measures accurately reflect the goals and purpose of this program and the priority, and therefore additional outcome measures are no longer needed.
The purpose of this priority is to fund projects that provide training to working interpreters in one of five specialty areas to effectively meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are DeafBlind receiving vocational rehabilitation (VR) services and/or services from other programs, such as independent living services, under the Rehabilitation Act. For the purposes of this priority, working interpreters must possess a baccalaureate degree and a minimum of three years of relevant experience as an interpreter. On a case-by-case basis and in consultation with RSA, educational equivalence may be used in place of the baccalaureate degree.
The specialty areas are—
(1) Increasing skills of novice interpreters;
(2) Trilingual interpreting (including Spanish) (
(3) Advanced skills for working interpreters;
(4) Cultural competency training, outreach, and recruitment of interpreters from multicultural backgrounds; and
(5) National projects in a field-initiated area, in topic areas such as-
(a) Interpreting in healthcare, including interpreting for hard-to-serve populations;
(b) Interpreting for individuals who are DeafBlind;
(c) Atypical language interpreting; and
(d) Other topics in new areas for which applicants demonstrate that the existing training is not adequately meeting the needs of interpreters working in the field of VR.
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for this priority. We may apply these requirements in any year in which this priority is in effect.
The following application requirements apply to all specialty areas under this priority. The Department encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements. Applicants must—
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the
application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will address the need for sign language interpreters in a specialty area. To address this requirement, applicants must—
(1) Present applicable data demonstrating the need for interpreters in the specialty area for which training will be developed by the project and delivered in at least three distinct, noncontiguous geographic areas, which may include the U.S. Territories;
(2) Present baseline data for the number or estimated number of working interpreters currently trained in the specialty area. In the event that an applicant proposes training in a new specialty area that does not currently exist or for which there are no baseline data, the applicant should provide an adequate explanation of the lack of reliable data and may report zero as a baseline; and
(3) Describe the competencies that working interpreters must demonstrate in order to provide high-quality services in the identified specialty area and explain how those competencies are based on practices that demonstrate a rationale or are supported by promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Design,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Develop a new training program or stand-alone modules and conduct a pilot by the end of the first year of the project. Applicants must provide justification in their application if they believe additional time may be necessary to fully develop and pilot the curricula before the end of the first year. The training program or stand-alone modules must contain remote learning
(2) Deliver the training or stand-alone modules remotely to at least three distinct, noncontiguous geographic areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of these application requirements in years two, three, four, and five of the project. Applicants may deliver in-person training, as appropriate, to support participants' application of knowledge, skills, and competencies gained through online training. Applicants may decide when to safely offer in-person training and must be prepared to pivot between in-person and remote learning during the project, as needed, throughout the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic;
(3) Provide skilled, diverse, and experienced leaders, mentors, facilitators, coaches, and subject matter experts, as appropriate for the specialty area, to participants, as needed. This may include, but is not limited to, one-on-one instruction to address specific areas identified by an advisor as needing further practice, and providing written feedback from observed interpreting situations and mentoring sessions, from deaf consumers, from trained mentors, and from others, as appropriate;
(4) Develop a self-directed track and make it available to the public for independent remote learning by the end of the second year of the project. Applicants must develop a curriculum guide for each module and make available relevant materials from the training program. Applicants may offer CEUs to participants who successfully complete the self-directed track;
(5) Be based on current research and make use of practices that demonstrate a rationale or are supported by promising evidence. To meet this requirement, applicants must describe—
(i) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and practices that demonstrate a rationale or are supported by promising evidence in the development and delivery of training and in the development of products and materials;
(ii) How the proposed project will ensure interaction between project participants and individuals with disabilities who are deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind and have a range of communication skills, from those with limited language skills to those with high-level, professional language skills, as appropriate.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” applicants must—
(1) Demonstrate how the project will ensure equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups who have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability;
(2) Describe the criteria that will be used to identify applicants for participation in the program, including any pre-assessments that may be used to determine the skill, knowledge base, and competencies of the working interpreter;
(3) Describe how the project will conduct outreach
(4) Describe how the project will provide feedback, resources, and next steps to applicants who may not be accepted into the program due to insufficient skills, knowledge base, and competencies;
(5) Describe how the program will identify skilled, diverse, and experienced leaders, mentors, facilitators, coaches, and subject matter experts, as appropriate for the specialty area, and develop necessary training for them to improve and enhance interpreting skills in their respective areas, as well as in remote delivery, as needed. Applicants must also describe how they will grow the pool of experienced personnel and create opportunities for participants to advance as mentors, coaches, and facilitators in the program;
(6) Describe the approach that will be used to enable more working interpreters to participate in and successfully complete the training program, specifically participants who need to work while in the program, have child care or elder care considerations, or live in geographically isolated areas;
(7) Describe how the project will incorporate adult learning principles and practices that demonstrate a rationale or are supported by promising evidence for adult learners;
(8) Demonstrate how the project is of sufficient scope, intensity, and duration to adequately prepare working interpreters in the identified specialty area of training. To address this requirement, applicants must describe how—
(i) The components of the proposed project will support working interpreters' acquisition and enhancement of the competencies identified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of these application requirements;
(ii) The components of the project will provide working interpreters opportunities to apply their content knowledge in a variety of practical settings;
(iii) The proposed project will establish induction experiences in the specialty area for participants as a requirement for completion in the training program, to the extent possible. The induction environment must be designed in such a way that meets the communication preferences of individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind. Applicants must be prepared to pivot between in-person and remote inductions during the project, as needed, throughout the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of participants completing inductions may be based on availability of opportunities and trained personnel necessary to support them. Applicants may determine the appropriate scope and length of time for the induction and must work to increase the availability of inductions in their respective specialty area, where possible;
(9) Demonstrate how the proposed project will actively engage representation from consumers, consumer organizations, and service providers, especially State VR agencies and their partners, interpreters, interpreter educators, and individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind, in all aspects of the project; and
(10) Describe how the project will conduct dissemination, coordination, and communication activities. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will—
(i) Disseminate information to working interpreters about training available in specialized areas and to State VR agencies and their partners, American Job Centers, and other workforce partners about how to locate specialized interpreters in their State and local areas;
(ii) Establish a state-of-the-art website or modify an existing website for communicating with participants and stakeholders and ensure that all material developed by the grant and posted on the website are accessible to individuals with disabilities in accordance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as applicable. The website must provide a central location for all material related to the project, such as reports, training curricula, audiovisual materials, webinars, communities of practice, and other relevant material developed by the grantee;
(iii) Disseminate information about the project, including, but not limited to, products such as training curricula, presentations, reports, effective practices for training working interpreters in specialized areas, and other relevant information through the NCRTM;
(iv) In the final year of the budget period, ensure that all training materials have been provided to the NCRTM and the website and IT platform can be
(v) Establish one or more communities of practice in the specialty area of training that focuses on project activities and acts as a vehicle for communication and exchange of information among participants in the program and other relevant stakeholders;
(vi) Communicate, collaborate, and coordinate with other relevant Department-funded projects, as applicable;
(vii) Maintain ongoing communication with the RSA project officer and other RSA staff as required;
(viii) Communicate, collaborate, and coordinate, as appropriate, with key staff in State VR agencies, such as the State Coordinators for the Deaf; State and local partner programs; consumer organizations and associations, including those that represent individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind; and relevant RSA partner organizations and associations; and
(ix) Disseminate to associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degree ASL-English programs, as well as to relevant Department-funded programs and Federal partners, as applicable, the training material and products for incorporation into existing curricula, as well as products, effective practices for training working interpreters in specialized areas, challenges and solutions, results achieved, and lessons learned. To satisfy this requirement, the grantee must develop participant guides, implementation materials, toolkits, manuals, and other relevant material for interpreter educators and others, as appropriate, to incorporate or build into existing programs.
(d) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan. To meet this requirement, the evaluation plan must describe—
(1) Standards and targets for measuring the effectiveness of the program;
(2) An approach for measuring knowledge, skills, and competencies before and after successful completion of training;
(3) An approach for measuring outcomes for participants that completed an induction compared to those who did not prior to successfully completing the program;
(4) An approach for gathering information from participants about their estimated percentage of workload interpreting for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are DeafBlind receiving VR services and/or services from other programs, such as independent living services, before and after specialty training;
(5) An approach for incorporating oral and written feedback from trainers and deaf consumers and any feedback from coaching or mentoring sessions conducted with the participants;
(6) Methodologies, including instruments, data collection methods, and analyses that will be used to evaluate the project and how the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data to demonstrate whether the project activities achieved their intended outcomes;
(7) Measures of progress in implementation, including the extent to which the project activities and products have reached their intended recipients, measures of intended outcomes or results in order to evaluate those activities, and how well the goals and objectives of the proposed project, as described in the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), have been met;
(8) How the evaluation will be coordinated, implemented, and revised, as needed, during the project. The applicant must designate at least one individual with sufficient dedicated time, demonstrated experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to coordinate and conduct the evaluation. This may include, but is not limited to, making revisions post award in order to reflect any changes or clarifications, as needed, to the model and to the evaluation design and instrumentation with the logic model (
(9) How evaluation results will be used to examine the effectiveness of the training. To address this requirement, applicants must provide an approach for determining—
(i) What practice(s) was most effective in training working interpreters in the respective specialty area and what data demonstrates the practice(s) was effective; and
(ii) What practice(s) was most effective in narrowing working interpreters' skill gaps and what data demonstrates the practice(s) was effective.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment with the project from persons who are members of groups that have historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability;
(2) Describe any proposed consultants or contractors named in the application and their areas of expertise and provide a rationale to demonstrate the need;
(3) Describe costs associated with technology, including, but not limited to, maintaining an online learning platform, state-of-the-art archiving and dissemination platform, and communication tools (
(4) The applicant and any identified partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities.
(f) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how applicants will ensure that—
(1) The project's intended outcomes, including the evaluation, will be achieved on time and within budget, through—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities of key project personnel, consultants, and contractors, as applicable;
(ii) Procedures to track and ensure completion of the action steps, timelines, and milestones established for key project activities, requirements, and deliverables;
(iii) Internal monitoring processes to ensure that the project is being implemented in accordance with the established application and project plan; and
(iv) Internal financial management controls to ensure accurate and timely obligations, drawdowns, and reporting of grant funds, as well as monitoring contracts, in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200 and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.
(2) The allocation of key project personnel, consultants, and contractors, as applicable, including levels of effort of key personnel that are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes, including an assurance that key personnel will have enough availability to ensure timely communications with stakeholders and RSA;
(3) The products and services are of high quality, relevance, and usefulness, in both content and delivery;
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives; and
(5) Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with nondiscrimination requirements contained in the Federal civil rights laws.
(g) Address the following application requirements. Applicants must—
(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and short and long-term outcomes of the proposed project;
(2) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative; and
(3) Provide an assurance that any interpreters trained or retrained under this program will meet the standards of competency for a qualified professional, defined in 34 CFR 396.4(c) as an individual who has: (i) Met existing certification or evaluation requirements equivalent to the highest standards approved by certifying associations; and (ii) successfully demonstrated interpreting skills that reflect the highest standards approved by certifying associations through prior work experience.
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing this final priority and requirements only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect, that is, public and private nonprofit agencies and organizations including institutions of higher education, are eligible for assistance under this program. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the final priority and requirements would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of the final priority and requirements would outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant. There are very few
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri on January 15, 2019, and supplemented by letter on July 11, 2019. Missouri requests that the EPA remove a rule related to control of emissions from the application of deadeners and adhesives in the St. Louis, Missouri area from its SIP. This rescission does not have an adverse effect on air quality and meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA's approval of this rule revision is in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
This final rule is effective on August 25, 2021.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2021-0332. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Ashley Keas, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7629; email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
The EPA is approving the removal of 10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-5.370,
The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from June 25, 2018, to August 2, 2018, and held a public hearing on July 26, 2018. Missouri received five comments from the EPA that related to Missouri's lack of an adequate demonstration that the rule could be removed from the SIP in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA. Missouri's July 11, 2019 letter addressed the EPA's comments. In addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
The EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's request to remove 10 CSR 10-5.370 from the SIP.
In this document, the EPA is amending regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. As described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, the EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations from the Missouri State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not cause disproportionate human health or environmental effects, as applicable under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 24, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its small business size standards, which are used to qualify an NRC licensee as a “small entity” under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA). The purpose of these size standards is for reducing annual NRC license fees for small entities. These standards do not apply to NRC contracting for goods and services. The NRC is proposing to increase the upper and lower tiers for its receipts-based small entity size standards for small businesses and small not-for-profit organizations. This change will allow NRC standards to remain consistent with the inflation adjustments made by the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard for nonmanufacturing concerns. In addition, in accordance with the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018 (Runway Act), the NRC is proposing to change the calculation of annual average receipts for the receipts-based NRC size standard for small businesses that provide a service or small businesses not engaged in manufacturing from a 3-year averaging period to a 5-year averaging period. The public is invited to submit comments on this proposed rule.
Submit comments by August 25, 2021. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is only able to ensure consideration for comments received before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Jo A. Jacobs, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, telephone: 301-415-8388; email:
Public Protection Notification
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0264 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0264 in the subject line of your comment submission in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission publicly available in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submissions. Your request should state the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to
The NRC's current size standards are provided under part 2 of title 10 of the
The NRC's current size standards under § 2.810 are based on the SBA's receipts-based size standards for small businesses and small not-for-profit organizations, employee-based size standards for business concerns that are manufacturing and for small educational institutions that are not State or publicly supported entities, and population-based size standards for small governmental jurisdictions.
In establishing the Fiscal Year (FY) 1991 fee rule, the NRC determined that the annual fees would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small material licensees. As a result, the NRC established a small entity fee tier in § 171.16(c), which resulted in a subsidy program whereby small entities would pay a reduced annual fee (56 FR 31507; July 10, 1991). In FY 1992, the NRC established a second tier in § 171.16(c) to benefit the licensees that were very small entities. Pursuant to § 171.16(c), if a licensee qualifies as a small entity and provides the Commission with the proper certification, the licensee may pay a reduced annual fee. As part of the certification process, a licensee that meets the NRC's size standards for a small entity must complete NRC Form 526, “Certification of Small Entity Status for the Purposes of Annual Fees,” certifying that it meets the NRC's size standards for a small entity.
The last revision, an inflationary adjustment, to the receipts-based size standards in §§ 2.810 and 171.16(c) was in a rule published in the
The Runway Act amended section 3(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II)), to modify the requirements for the small business size standards prescribed by an agency without separate statutory authority to issue size standards. Subsequently, on December 5, 2019, the SBA published a final rule modifying its method for calculating average annual receipts used to prescribe size standards for small businesses (84 FR 66561). As a result, and because of the proposed inflationary adjustments described more fully in the “Discussion” section of this document, the NRC must revise its receipts-based size standards from a 3-year averaging period to a 5-year averaging period to comply with the Runway Act.
In order to amend § 2.810, the NRC must follow the procedures of the Small Business Act, and SBA's implementing regulations in 13 CFR 121.903, “How may an agency use size standards for its programs that are different than those established by SBA?,” because it does not have separate statutory authority to issue size standards.
The NRC is proposing to amend § 2.810 to increase the receipts-based small entity size standard from $7.0 million to $8.0 million for small businesses and small, not-for-profit organizations. These proposed amendments are to remain consistent with inflation adjustments made by the SBA to its size standard for nonmanufacturing concerns. Most recently, the SBA adjusted this standard for inflation on July 18, 2019 (84 FR 34261). In addition, the NRC is also proposing to amend the average gross-receipts calculation process to change from a 3-year averaging period to a 5-year averaging period, as required by SBA regulations and in response to the Runway Act.
Further, and analogous to the proposed inflation adjustment in § 2.810, the NRC is proposing to amend § 171.16(c) to increase the upper tier receipts-based small entity size standard from $7.0 million to $8.0 million for small businesses and small, not-for-profit organizations. Likewise, the NRC is proposing to increase the lower tier receipts-based size standard from $485,000 to $555,000, based upon the percent change in the upper tier.
Under the RFA, the Commission certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule is administrative in that this proposed rule will revise the criteria in 10 CFR parts 2 and 171 that the NRC uses to determine which of its licensees qualify as small entities for the purposes of compliance with the RFA. The proposed amendments to the size standards conform to the SBA's revised standard and is expected to result in an increase in the number of NRC licensees that qualify as small entities.
The RFA requires agencies to consider the impact of rulemaking on small entities and, consistent with applicable statutes, study alternatives to minimize the impacts on applicable businesses, organizations, and government jurisdictions. In previous rulemakings to amend its size standards, the NRC has adjusted the criteria that the NRC uses to determine which of its licensees qualify as small entities for the purposes of compliance with the RFA.
For the NRC's size standards, rulemaking is required to amend the methodology for calculating average gross-receipts and the upper and lower tier receipts-based size standards to reflect inflationary adjustments. Because the last revision, an inflationary adjustment, to the receipts-based size standards in §§ 2.810 and 171.16(c) was in 2012 and 2013, respectively, this proposed rule includes inflationary adjustments to the receipts-based size standards. This proposed rule would amend §§ 2.810 and 171.16(c) to increase the NRC's upper tier receipts-based size standard from $7.0 million to $8.0 million for small businesses and small not-for-profit organizations, in order to remain consistent with the inflation adjustments made in the SBA's size standard for nonmanufacturing. In
The NRC estimates that the proposed rule would provide the following benefits and costs:
• This action would result in continued compliance with the RFA, since the proposed rule would reduce the impact of annual fees on small entities by increasing the receipts-based size standards in § 2.810 and the tiers in § 171.16(c) that licensees use to qualify as small entities.
• While it is not certain how many licensees would qualify as small entities under the receipts-based size standards that is adjusted for inflation, the staff estimates that 95 additional licensees (a 12-percent increase) would qualify as small entities and be eligible to pay a reduced annual fee.
• The licensees can have increased regulatory confidence that the NRC has amended the agency's receipts-based size standards to be consistent with the SBA's practices, and that staff would review the current size standards and determine whether proposed amendments are needed every 5 years or sooner based on the SBA's adjustments.
• The cost impact of changing the average gross-receipts from a 3-year averaging period to a 5-year averaging period is not known, as the average gross-receipts have been based on a 3-year averaging period since the NRC established its size standards in 1985. Every licensee would likely need to expend some effort to evaluate its gross-receipts and may need to provide additional information if questions arise during the staff's certification review. Modifying to a 5-year averaging period of gross-receipts may result in a negative impact in that some licensees that are close to the upper limit of their size standard could lose their small entity status, while others may newly qualify as small entities. Despite this cost, since the NRC is proposing to amend the receipts-based size standards for inflationary adjustments, the NRC is required pursuant to the Runway Act to amend the average gross-receipts from a 3-year averaging period to a 5-year averaging period.
• The expected increase in additional licensees qualifying as small entities could possibly increase the NRC's net budget authority as a result of additional licensees qualifying as small entities.
The results of the regulatory analysis are cost-justified because the proposed rule would result in an estimated 95 additional licensees (a 12-percent increase) who would qualify as small entities and be eligible to pay a reduced annual fee and the identified cost impacts are small. The NRC did not identify any other alternatives to amend the receipts-based size standards under § 2.810, which are consistent with the adjustments made by the SBA. In addition, the NRC did not identify any alternatives to rulemaking to amend the upper and lower tiers under § 171.16(c) to reflect inflationary adjustments.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, §§ 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, and 76.76 and the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52 do not apply to this proposed rule and that an analysis is not required because these amendments do not require the modification of, or addition to, (1) systems, structures, components, or the design of a facility; (2) the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or (3) the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC wrote this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act, as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). The NRC requests comment on the clarity and effectiveness of the language used in this proposed rule.
The NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of action described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.
This proposed rule does not contain a collection of information as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
The NRC publishes a fee guidance document for small entities annually in conjunction with the NRC's annual rule to revise its fee schedules. The “Small Entity Compliance Guide” is designed to assist businesses, organizations, educational institutions, and governmental jurisdictions in determining whether they qualify as small entities by providing the qualifying factors that make up the NRC's definition of “small entity,” and the current small entity fees. The NRC will update the compliance guide each year when issuing the final fee rule and to align with the fee schedule of that year. Most recently, the NRC prepared the Small Entity Compliance Guide for the FY 2021 proposed fee rule. This compliance guide is available as indicated in Section XII, Availability of Documents, of this document.
Documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
Throughout the development of this proposed rule, the NRC may post documents related to this proposed rule, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Confidential business information, Environmental protection, Freedom of information, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.
Annual charges, Byproduct material, Holders of certificates, registrations, approvals, Intergovernmental relations, Nonpayment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR parts 2 and 171 as follows:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 29, 53, 62, 63, 81, 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2239, 2241, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 114(f), 134, 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f), 10154, 10155, 10161); Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552, 553, 554, 557, 558); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Section 2.205(j) also issued under 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(a) * * *
(1) Concern that provides a service or a concern not engaged in manufacturing with average gross receipts of $8.0 million or less over its last 5 completed fiscal years; or
(b) A small organization is a not-for-profit organization which is independently owned and operated and has annual gross receipts of $8.0 million or less.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 161(w), 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2201(w), 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 U.S.C. 2215; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
(c) A licensee who is required to pay an annual fee under this section, in addition to 10 CFR part 72 licenses, may qualify as a small entity. If a licensee qualifies as a small entity and provides the Commission with the proper certification along with its annual fee payment, the licensee may pay reduced annual fees as shown in table 1 to this paragraph (c). Failure to file a small entity certification in a timely manner could result in the receipt of a delinquent invoice requesting the outstanding balance due and/or denial of any refund that might otherwise be due. The small entity fees are as follows:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Leonardo S.p.a. (Leonardo) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of several occurrences of a cracked main gearbox (MGB) spherical bearing lock nut (lock nut). This proposed AD would require removing from service a certain part-numbered MGB lock nut that is installed on certain part-numbered MGBs and replacing it with newly designed MGB lock nut. This proposed AD would also would prohibit installing any MGB with the affected MGB lock nut and would prohibit installing any affected MGB lock nut on any helicopter. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 9, 2021.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
You may examine the AD docket at
Rao Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, Dynamic Systems Section, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy & Innovation Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD 2019-0036, dated February 15, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0036), to correct an unsafe condition for all serial-numbered Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters (formerly Finmeccanica S.p.A, AgustaWestland S.p.A., Agusta S.p.A.; and AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation, formerly Agusta Aerospace Corporation) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. EASA advises that an occurrence was reported of a cracked MGB lock nut part number (P/N) 3G6310A09151, which is used to keep the planetary gears in position. EASA AD 2019-0036 required replacing each MGB lock nut with an airworthy MGB lock nut. EASA advised this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the MGB planetary gears, resulting in loss of control of the helicopter.
After EASA issued EASA AD 2019-0036, an additional occurrence was reported of a cracked MGB lock nut P/N 3G6320A09151. Accordingly, EASA superseded EASA AD 2019-0036 with EASA AD 2019-0174, dated July 18, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0174), which retained the requirements of EASA AD 2019-0036 but reduced the compliance times. After EASA issued EASA AD 2019-0174, Leonardo Helicopters issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 139-609, dated December 18, 2019 to provide instructions for replacing the affected MGB lock nut with MGB lock nut P/N 3G6320A09152, which has a redesigned flange reducing the stress at the bearing nut locations where cracks were detected.
Accordingly, EASA then issued EASA AD 2020-0011, dated January 29, 2020, and corrected January 30, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0011), which superseded EASA AD 2019-0174, and partially retained the requirements of EASA AD 2019-0174. EASA AD 2020-0011 revised the compliance times in EASA AD 2019-0174; required replacing each affected MGB lock nut with a newly designed MGB lock nut and prohibited installing an affected MGB on any helicopter. After EASA issued EASA AD 2020-0011, EASA identified that certain MGB part numbers were inadvertently categorized incorrectly and therefore listed in the wrong group of helicopters. Accordingly, EASA issued EASA AD 2020-0011R1, dated November 20, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-011R1), revising EASA AD 2020-0011. EASA AD 2020-0011R1 retains the requirements of EASA AD 2020-0011 and corrects Appendix 1 of EASA AD 2020-0011.
After EASA issued EASA AD 2020-0011R1, Leonardo Helicopters issued ASB No. 139-609, Revision A, dated April 13, 2021 (ASB 139-609 Rev A), which identifies an additional part-numbered MGB, which is also affected by the unsafe condition. Accordingly, EASA superseded EASA AD 2020-0011R1 with EASA AD 2021-0121, dated May 4, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0121). EASA AD 2021-0121 adds an additional part-numbered MGB with a certain S/N to the list of affected parts. EASA AD 2021-0121 retains the requirements of EASA AD 2020-0011R1, and corrects Table 1 and Appendix 1 of EASA AD 2020-0011R1.
These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs.
The FAA reviewed ASB 139-609 Rev A, which specifies procedures for replacing an affected MGB lock nut with the new MGB lock nut, within certain compliance times for certain part-numbered MGBs, with certain serial numbers.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA also reviewed Leonardo Helicopters ASB No. 139-567, Revision B, dated October 18, 2019, which provides additional information for replacing the MGB lock nut.
This proposed AD would require within 100 hours time in service (TIS) or during the next scheduled MGB overhaul, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, removing a certain part-numbered MGB lock nut from service and replacing it with a new part-numbered MGB lock nut. This proposed AD would prohibit installing an MGB having an affected MGB lock nut and also prohibit installing an affected MGB lock nut on any helicopter as of the effective date of the proposed AD.
EASA AD 2021-0121 requires a compliance time based on number of landings, whereas this proposed AD would require a compliance time based on hours TIS. The service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0121 requires submitting certain information and parts to Leonardo, whereas this proposed AD would not. EASA AD 2021-0121 applies to all serial-numbered Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would only apply to Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters without certain part-numbered MGB lock nuts installed and with certain part-numbered MGBs installed.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 130 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
Replacing each affected MGB lock nut with a newly designed MGB lock nut would take about 190 work-hours (during next MGB overhaul) and parts would cost about $7,600 for an estimated cost of $23,750 per replacement.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by September 9, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, certificated in any category, without main gearbox (MGB) spherical bearing lock nut (lock nut) part number (P/N) 3G6320A09152 installed and with:
(1) MGB P/N 3G6320A00131, 3G6320A00132, 3G6320A00133, 3G6320A00134, 3G6320A00135, 3G6320A00136, 3G6320A22031, 4G6320A00132, or 4G6320A00133 installed, or
(2) MGB P/N 3G320A00133 with serial number (S/N) M23, or MGB P/N 3G6320A00134, with S/N M6, N76, N92, P124, P129, P131, P162, P184, Q230, Q243, Q249, R272, V21, V39, V96, V163, V211, V241, V272, V281, V384, V386, or V622 installed, or
(3) MGB P/N 3G6320A00136 with S/N AW1, AW2, AW3, AW5, or AW10 installed.
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6320, Main Rotor Gearbox.
This AD was prompted by a cracked MGB lock nut. The FAA is issuing this AD to replace an affected MGB lock nut with a new MGB lock nut. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the MGB planetary gears, resulting in loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 100 hours time-in-service, or during the next scheduled MGB overhaul, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, remove each MGB lock nut P/N 3G6320A09151 from service and replace with MGB lock nut P/N 3G6320A09152 in accordance with Annex A, steps 1 through 17, of Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. 139-609, Revision A, dated April 13, 2021 (ASB 139-609, Rev A), except you are not required to send parts to Leonardo Helicopters.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any MGB having MGB lock nut P/N 3G630A09151 on any helicopter, and do not install any MGB lock nut P/N 3G630A09151 on any helicopter.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Rao Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, Dynamic Systems Section, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy & Innovation Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
(3) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0121, dated May 4, 2021. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
This action proposes to modify the Class D airspace at McChord Field (Joint Base Lewis-McChord), Tacoma, WA. After a review of the airspace, the FAA found it necessary to amend the existing airspace for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at this location and Visual Flight Rules (VFR) at a satellite airport. This proposal would also remove a reference to the McChord Very High Frequency
Comments must be received on or before September 9, 2021.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0896; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-17, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-2245.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the Class D airspace to support IFR operations at McChord Field (Joint Base Lewis-McChord), Tacoma, WA.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0896; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-17”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2020-0896 in the
Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA received comments from the Aircraft Owners and Pilot Association (AOPA), the Airport Manager and local Pilots from Shady Acres Airport and the U.S. Air Force. AOPA, the Airport Manager and local pilots were in favor of a small portion of airspace, from the original area cutout for Spanaway airport, being maintained for satellite airport operations at Shady Acres Airport. These amendments would maintain the current level of operational safety, while adhering to FAA policy on airspace for satellite airports. The U.S. Air Force was not in favor of this recommendation. In addition, the FAA identified an area of airspace to the Northwest that needed additional clarification in its boundary and the U.S. Air Force identified that only the VOR was being decommissioned and not the Tactical Air Navigation System (TACAN), as previously reported. The FAA determined that the proposal needed additional consideration due to these comments.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the lateral dimensions of the Class D airspace. The FAA initiated a review of the assigned airspace and drafted the subsequent proposal for modification due to three actions. The FAA decommissioned the McChord VOR because the U.S. Air Force was no longer going to maintain the NAVAID.
The exclusion of Class D airspace that is southeast of the airport would be modified to facilitate use of the airspace for aircraft arriving and departing Shady Acres Airport, in keeping with FAA Directives. A portion of the airspace overlying Lakewood, WA would also be eliminated, as it is no longer needed.
In addition, the Legal Descriptions Heading would be corrected to identify the proper city and state, the name of the airport and the geographical coordinates for McChord Field (Joint Base Lewis McChord) to match the FAA's National Airspace System Resource (NASR) database.
Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,800 feet MSL within a 5.4-mile radius of the McChord Field (Joint Base Lewis-McChord), beginning at the point the 315° bearing intersects the 5.4-mile radius clockwise to the point where the 162° bearing intersects the 5.4-mile radius thence south to lat. 47°02′10″ N, long. 122°26′13″ W, thence west to lat. 47°02′21″ N, long. 122°31′31″ W, thence north to lat. 47°04′19″ N, long. 122°31′27″ W, thence northwest to lat. 47°08′47″ N, long. 122°35′11″ W, thence east to lat. 47°08′35 N, long. 122°33′03 W, thence north to the point of beginning; and excluding that airspace at and below 1,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at the point the 119° bearing intersects the 5.4-mile radius clockwise to the point the 145° bearing intersects the 5.4-mile radius to lat. 47°04′34″ N, long. 122°24′2″ W; thence to lat. 47°05′43″ N, long. 122°22′24″ W; thence to the point of beginning.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing its proposed rule to approve Missouri's revisions to the state's open burning rule, as published in the
The proposed rule published on January 13, 2020 (85 FR 1794) is withdrawn as of July 26, 2021.
Wendy Vit, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7697, or by email at
Missouri has withdrawn the rule as stated in the letter dated May 26, 2021, which is included in the docket for this action. Because the EPA received adverse comments on its proposed rule, the EPA is publishing this notice of withdrawal to notify commenters that it no longer intends to take final action on the revisions proposed to 10 CSR 10-6.045 on January 13, 2020 at 85 FR 1794.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement (OPPE), Agriculture (USDA).
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for fiscal year 2021.
This notice announces the availability of funds for fiscal year (FY) 2021 and solicits applications from community-based and non-profit organizations, institutions of higher education, and Tribal entities to compete for financial assistance through the Outreach and technical assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Program (hereinafter referred to as the “2501 Program”). The overall goal of the 2501 Program is to encourage and assist socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, veteran farmers and ranchers, and beginning farmers and ranchers with owning and operating farms and ranches and in participating equitably in the full range of agricultural, forestry, and related programs offered by USDA. In partnership with the OPPE, eligible entities may compete for funding on projects that provide education and training in agriculture, agribusiness, forestry, agriculturally related services, and USDA programs, and to conduct outreach initiatives designed to accomplish those goals. This partnership includes working closely with OPPE, attend OPPE-led events in your proposed service territory, and collaborate with your State Food and Agriculture Council (SFAC). The SFAC consists of leadership in each state of the following agencies: Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Rural Development.
Only one project proposal may be submitted per eligible entity. Proposals must be submitted through
The OPPE will host two (2) webinars during the open period of this announcement as provided below. Sessions will be recorded. Additional sessions may be necessary to answer questions and clarify requirements. There is no registration required to participate.
To file a program discrimination complaint, you may obtain a complaint form by sending an email to
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
U.S. Department of Agriculture Director, Center for Civil Rights Enforcement, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement, Attn: Kenya Nicholas, Program Director, Jamie L. Whitten Building, Room 520-A, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
The OPPE will award grants from this announcement, subject to availability of funds and the quality of applications received. All applicants will compete based on their organization's entity type (
Funds will be awarded to eligible entities that have at least three (3) years of documented experience, preceding the submission of an application, in working with socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers or veteran farmers and ranchers to improve their ability to start and maintain successful forestry and/or agricultural-related operations. The Secretary shall give priority to nongovernmental and community-based organizations with demonstrated history of serving socially disadvantaged and
An applicant MUST be an entity or organization. Individuals and for-profit organizations do not meet the eligibility criteria.
Funds under this program may not be used for the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of a building or facility. Program funds may not be used for start-up or financing costs for businesses. Additionally, funds may not be used for an organization's capacity building, which is defined as the development of organizational competencies, strategies, or systems and structures in order to improve organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Program funds may also not be used as small agricultural loans for individual farmers or used to incentivize individuals to attend an event. Finally, large equipment purchases such as vehicles, semi-tractors, or refrigeration systems are unallowable under this program.
Eligible entities may receive subsequent years funding provided that:
(a) Activities and associated costs do not overlap with projects awarded in previous years; and
(b) Recipients are current and compliant with financial and performance reporting. The progress of existing projects, along with the percentage of funds used to date, may impact funding decisions.
Funding will be awarded based on ranked scores comprised of the three categories described below, along with the amount of anticipated funding for each category. The OPPE has discretion to allocate funding among the three categories based upon the number and quality of applications received. There is no commitment by the OPPE to fund any particular application nor is there a minimum number of recipients within each category.
Category #1: Eligible entities described in Sections III.A.2, III.A.3, and III.A.4
(1890 Land-Grant colleges and universities, 1994 Tribal Land-Grant, Alaska Native and American Indian Tribal colleges and universities, and Hispanic-Serving Institutions of higher education).
The OPPE is committed to ensuring that socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers can equitably participate in USDA programs. Differences in demographics, culture, economics, language, and other factors preclude a single approach to identifying solutions that can benefit underserved farmers and ranchers. Grants are provided to community-based and non-profit organizations, higher education institutions, eligible Tribal entities and other eligible entities with at least three (3) years of documented experience, preceding the submission of an application. Eligible entities working with socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers or veteran farmers and ranchers can improve their ability to start and maintain successful forestry and/or agricultural-related operations. With 2501 Program funding, organizations can provide agricultural outreach and technical assistance and extend outreach and education efforts to connect with and assist socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers to provide them with information on available USDA resources.
1. The 2501 Program was authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 expanded the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) to provide awards under the program and transferred the administrative authority to the OPPE. The Agricultural Act of 2014 further expanded the program to include outreach and technical assistance to veterans. The 2501 Program extends USDA's capacity to work with members of farming and ranching communities by funding projects that enhance the equitable participation of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers in USDA programs. It is the OPPE's intention to build lasting relationships among USDA, recipient organizations, and socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers to maximize the availability of outreach and technical assistance in targeted communities.
2.
The 2501 Program provides funding to eligible organizations with
1. To enhance coordination of the outreach, technical assistance, education, and training efforts authorized under USDA agriculture programs;
2. To assist the Secretary of Agriculture in:
a. Reaching current and prospective socially disadvantaged farmers or
b. improving the participation of those farmers and ranchers in USDA programs.
There are five programmatic mission areas that support the goals of the 2501 Program. Proposals from eligible entities must address
i. Assist socially disadvantaged, veteran farmers and ranchers, or beginning farmers and ranchers in owning and operating successful farms and ranches;
ii. Improve participation among socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers and ranchers in USDA programs;
iii. Build relationships between current and prospective farmers and ranchers who are socially disadvantaged or veterans and USDA's local, state, regional, and National offices;
iv. Assist in reaching current and prospective socially disadvantaged farmers, ranchers, or forest landowners in a linguistically appropriate manner; and
v. Assist with identifying problems and barriers identified by entities in trying to increase participation by current and prospective socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers.
The OPPE shall seek input from eligible entities providing technical assistance under this subsection not less than once each year to ensure that the program is responsive to the eligible entities providing that technical assistance (7 U.S.C. 2279(c)(4)(J)). The OPPE may require Project Directors to attend an Annual Meeting that can be expensed with awarded grant funds not to exceed $1,800 per award year. The Annual Meeting will allow participants, USDA officials, and other agriculture-related industry participants to network, encourage partnerships, share best practices (including COVID-related strategies used to assist targeted communities), discuss programmatic requirements, share information on new and enhanced USDA programs and services, and obtain programmatic feedback. Stakeholder input will also be accepted by those unable to attend the Annual Meeting in person by September 30th of each fiscal year at:
1. Outputs (Activities). The term “output” means an outreach, educational component, or assistance activity, task, or associated work product related to improving the ability of socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers and ranchers to own and operate farms and ranches, assistance with agriculture related activities, or guidance for participation in USDA programs. Outputs must be measurable during the period of performance.
Outputs describe an organization's activities and their participants such as: Number of workshops or meetings held and number of participants attending (including a list of participants with contact information); frequency of services or training delivered and to whom; development of products or resources provided. Other examples include but are not limited to the following:
a. Serve 300 socially disadvantaged and/or veteran farmers or ranchers by the end of the grant;
b. Conduct 12 workshops or training through virtual and/or in-person sessions, regarding animal husbandry, annually;
c. Assist 100 new farmers/ranchers to be able to process and accept SNAP payments;
d. Host 72 demonstrations on hoop house construction at the rate of 2 per month over a three-year period;
e. Develop a program to enhance the operational viability of socially disadvantaged and/or veteran farmers and ranchers;
f. Conduct Title Resolution Consultations for 10 socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers with forest land, 3 of whom will receive title resolution plans & legal technical assistance annually;
g. Provide assistance to 300 socially disadvantaged farmers resulting in the submission of FSA loan and grant applications to expand farming operations at the rate of 25 per quarter per fiscal year; or
h. Hold 12 workshops annually to provide socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers and ranchers training in writing business plans, financial literacy or in automating their farming business.
2. Outcomes (Results). The term “outcome” means the difference or effect that has occurred as a result from carrying out an activity, workshop, meeting, or from delivery of services related to a programmatic goal or objective. It is also the final impact or change that occurs as a direct result of the activities performed in accomplishing the objectives and goals of your project. Outcomes may refer to results that are agricultural, behavioral, social, or economic in nature. Outcomes may reflect an increase in knowledge or skills, a greater awareness of available resources or programs, or actions taken by stakeholders as a result of learning. Specifically, outcomes must be quantitative as it relates to the project goals and objectives. Project Directors will be required to document anticipated outcomes that are funded under this announcement including, but not limited to the following:
a. Documenting the actual number of new farmers and/or ranchers your organization assisted as a result of your project and the type of assistance (
b. Documenting race, sex, national origin, disability (if provided) and number of socially disadvantaged and/or veteran farmers or ranchers
c. Documenting race, sex, national origin, disability (if provided) and number of USDA program applications
d. Documenting the number of socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers and/or ranchers that have better access to USDA Programs as a result of your outreach and/or training efforts;
e. Documenting the enhanced sustainability and retention of farming operations among socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers or ranchers;
f. Documenting higher profitability and economic stability among socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers or ranchers resulting from increased access to marketing and enhanced sales opportunities for their products; and
g. Documenting through surveys an increase in the awareness and number and types of USDA programs and services as a result of your project.
3. Project Performance Measures. Project performance measures are tied to the goals or objectives of each activity and ultimately the overall purpose of the project. They provide progress and completion information of proposed activities and may indicate areas where a project may need adjustments. Applicants must develop performance measure targets for each of the proposed activities. These targets will be used as a mechanism to track the progress and success of the project. Project performance measures must include the assumptions used to make those estimates. Specifically, outcomes must be
Consider the following questions when developing performance measurement statements:
• What are the measurable short-term and long-term goals our project will have on serving the needs of our stakeholders?
• How will my organization measure the effectiveness and efficiency of our proposed activities to meet the overall goals and objectives for this project?
• Will agriculture producers or beginning farmers and ranchers gain an understanding in production, marketing, business management, and legal business issues? Will they develop their business acumen or implement or incorporate what they have learned?
• How will I collect those performance measurement data? What evidence will I use with this measure?
The statutory authority for this action is 7 U.S.C. 2279(c), which authorizes award funding for projects designed to provide outreach and technical assistance to socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers or ranchers.
The total estimated funding expected to be available for awards under this competitive opportunity is approximately $16.6 million. The maximum amount of requested federal funding shall not exceed $750,000.
The performance period for projects selected from this solicitation will not begin prior to the effective award date listed in the grant agreement. The project period must be no less
Funding for selected projects will be in the form of a grant agreement which must be fully executed no later than September 30 annually. The anticipated Federal involvement will include, but not limited to, the following activities:
1. Approval of recipients' final budget and Project Narrative or statement of work accompanying the grant agreement;
2. Monitoring of recipients' performance through semi-annual and final financial and performance reports; and
3. Conducting on-site monitoring visits to review compliance, use of Federal funds and fidelity in implementing the project.
All award notifications will be “conditionally approved” pending final validation of all selected applicants' submission documentation and/or application package. OPPE reserves the right not to fund any “conditionally approved” application(s) found to be ineligible after final validation.
1. Any non-profit, community-based organizations, tribal entity, networks, or a coalition of community-based organizations with at least 3 years of documented expertise in working with socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers or veteran farmers or ranchers that:
• Demonstrates experience in providing agricultural education or other agriculturally related services on USDA programs and services to socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers or ranchers;
• provides documentary evidence of work with, and on behalf of, socially disadvantaged, veteran farmers or ranchers, or beginning farmers and ranchers during the 3-year period preceding the submission of a proposal for assistance under this program (the lead applicant and/or any organization(s) comprising of a coalition or network must meet the three-year period preceding the submission criteria); and
• does not or has not engaged in activities prohibited under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.2.
2. An 1890 or 1994 land-grant institution of higher education (as defined in 7 U.S.C. 7601 and in Section 533 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note)).
3. An American Indian Tribal community college or university or an Alaska Native cooperative college.
4. A Hispanic-Serving Institution of higher education (as defined in 7 U.S.C. 3103).
5. Any other institution of higher education (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1001) that has demonstrated experience in providing agricultural education or other agricultural-related services to socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers or ranchers.
6. Any Federally-recognized Indian Tribe (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5131) or a national tribal organization that has demonstrated experience in providing agricultural education or other agriculturally related services to socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers or ranchers.
7. All other organizations or institutions that received funding under this program before January 1, 1996, but only with respect to projects that the Secretary considers similar to projects previously carried out by the entity under this program.
There are no cost-sharing nor matching requirements associated with this program. Applicants may charge their negotiated indirect cost rate or 10 percent, whichever is lower. Indirect cost rates exceeding 10 percent will not be permitted.
Applications from eligible entities that meet all criteria will be evaluated as follows:
1. Proposals must comply with the submission instructions and requirements set forth in Section IV of this announcement. Pages greater than the page limitation will not be considered.
2. Proposals must be received through
3. Proposals received after the submission deadline will not be considered.
4. Proposals must address a minimum of two programmatic mission areas listed in Section I, Part B, (i-v) to provide outreach and technical assistance to socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers or ranchers.
5. Recipients of a 2501 Grant with a Period of Performance that extends beyond 90 days of the current fiscal year are not eligible to apply (this does not apply to grantees with a no-cost extension). For example, current 2501 Grant recipients must complete their projects by the end of the current calendar year, to be eligible to apply.
6. Incomplete or partial applications will not be eligible for consideration. Any required documents missing from an applicant's application will render that applicant ineligible and the application will not be forwarded to the External Peer Review Panel (the Panel) for review. Additionally, applications may not be accepted for review if they
In accordance with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) and the USDA implementation, all applicants must obtain and provide an identifying number from Dun and Bradstreet's (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS). Applicants can receive a DUNS number, at no cost, by calling the toll-free DUNS number request line at (866) 705-5711 or visiting the D&B website at
It is a requirement to register for SAM (
Depending on the type of Federal Assistance your organization requests, you may need to complete the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) report, but for OPPE Federal assistance, you must complete the Financial Assistance Representations and Certifications Report. Completing this report certifies that your organization is in compliance with all relevant provisions of Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and public policies governing financial assistance awards.
Per 2 CFR part 200, applicants are required to: (1) Be registered in SAM prior to submitting an application; (2) provide a valid unique entity identifier in the application; and (3) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the organization has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency. The OPPE may not make a Federal award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the OPPE is ready to make a Federal award, the OPPE may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant. Additionally, organizations found to have unresolved key personnel exclusions will not be awarded.
SAM contains the publicly available data for all active exclusion records entered by the Federal Government identifying those parties excluded from receiving Federal contracts, certain subcontracts, and certain types of Federal financial and non-financial assistance and benefits. All applicant organizations and their key personnel will be vetted through SAM to ensure compliance with this requirement. Organizations identified as having delinquent Federal debt may contact the Treasury Offset Program at (800) 304-3107 for instructions on resolution but will not be awarded a 2501 Program grant prior to resolution.
Should an applicant be awarded a grant, ezFedGrants (USDA's financial grants management system) is linked with SAM to ensure funding payments are directed properly as entities must enter their banking information through SAM; as a result Federal agencies cannot award funding to any organization not properly/fully registered is SAM.
Federal agencies post competitive funding opportunities on
All Applicants will be required to register with
Applicants may download individual grant proposal forms from
Federal agencies post funding opportunities on
Proposals must be submitted by August 25, 2021, via
All submissions must contain completed and electronically signed original application forms, as well as a Project Narrative and a Budget Narrative as described below:
1. Required forms, documents, and attachments. The forms listed below can be found in the proposal package at
Do not include lengthy or unnecessary organizational documents such as your organization's business plans, Annual Reports, or full course or training curriculums in your application. Excessively large
Note, additional required forms from organizations being awarded 2501 Grant funds will be provided for execution upon grant approval if necessary.
Below is further guidance, where needed, for completing the required forms, documents, and attachment forms listed above.
• Your organization's name;
• Name of your project;
• Three or four sentences describing your project;
• The primary populations/communities you serve;
• The project's geographic service area (counties, state(s), etc.); and
• Project Director's name, email address, and telephone number.
Project proposals should include a well-conceived strategy for addressing the programmatic mission areas stated in Section I, Part B, Scope of Work. Organizations should state which programmatic mission areas will be addressed. Additionally, proposals must: (1) Define and establish the existence of the needs of socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers or veteran farmers or ranchers, or both; (2) identify the geographic area of service; and (3) discuss the potential impact of the project; (4) clearly state their 3-years of experience in delivering agriculture related services to socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers and ranchers and provide documented proof; and (5) clearly document how you plan to fulfill the requirement to coordinate efforts in partnership with the OPPE and USDA's SFAC to maximize outreach and training in your service territory.
•
•
•
• In an organized format, create a timeline for each task to be accomplished during the period of performance timeframe. Relate each task to one of the five programmatic mission areas in Section I, Part B. The timeline is part of the 30-page limit but can be as simple as a one-page description of tasks. The timeline may be in a table format and does not have to be double-spaced.
Attach your Project Narrative in PDF format to the Mandatory Project Narrative form in your
• Cost categories, also called Object Class Categories, include costs for
Costs of consultants, subgrants, or contractors should be included in the “Contractual” cost category.
• Include third party evaluation contracts (if applicable) and contracts with secondary recipient organizations. Demonstrate that all procurement transactions will be conducted in a manner to provide, to the maximum extent practical, free, fair, and open competition. Identify proposed sub-contractor work and the cost of each sub-contractor. Provide a detailed budget for each sub-contractor that is expected to perform work estimated to be $30,000 or more, or 50% of the total work effort, whichever is less.
• Identify each planned subcontractor and its total proposed budget. Each subcontractor's budget and supporting detail should be included as part of the applicant's budget narrative.
• Provide the following information for each planned subcontract: A brief description of the work to be subcontracted; the number of quotes solicited and received, if applicable; the cost or price analysis performed by the applicant; names and addresses of the subcontractors tentatively selected and the basis for their selection;
• Include all Subawards under Contractual Costs. Per 2 CFR part 200.1, Subaward means an award provided by a pass-through entity to a subrecipient for the subrecipient to carry out part of a Federal award received by the pass-through entity. It does not include payments to a contractor or payments to an individual that is a beneficiary of a Federal program. A subaward may be provided through any form of legal agreement, including an agreement that the pass-through entity considers a contract.
Special notes when creating your budget:
1. 2501 Program funds may not be used for the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of a building or facility. Program funds may not be used for start-up or financing costs for businesses or for capacity building. Program funds may not be used as small agricultural loans for individual farmers or used to incentivize individuals to attend an event. Large equipment purchases such as vehicles, semi-tractors, or refrigeration systems are also unallowable under this program.
2. Costs must be deemed reasonable. This includes salaries for key personnel which may not exceed the prevailing wage rates established by the Department of Labor by occupation and geographical area (see 2 CFR part 200 .404 and Appendix II(D)).
3. Food for conferences may not exceed $10 per person per meal, not to exceed two meals per day. Additionally, cattle for demonstration projects only, may not exceed $4,000, which includes any transportation costs, feed/feeding lot, etc. Grant funds may NOT be used to pay attendees as an incentive for participation in conferences nor be advertised as such. For a list of unallowable costs, see 2 CFR part 200, subpart E.
Attach your Budget Narrative in PDF format to the Mandatory Budget Narrative form in your
Funding may be used to provide subawards, which includes using subawards to fund partnerships; however, the lead recipient must utilize at least 50 percent of the total funds awarded, and no more than three sub-awards will be permitted. Subawardees and partners are generally responsible for carrying out grant activities as assigned. All subawardees or partners are subject to the requirements and responsibilities on the grant and must be a nonprofit or institution of higher education. This does
The OPPE awards funds to
Per OMB guidance, Federal awarding agencies are required to check the SAM Exclusions list of persons and entities ineligible for Federal awards. This requirement flows down to Federal Award recipients who are required to check SAM Exclusions for all subawards and contracts. Prime recipients must obtain prior written approval from the awarding agency for all proposed subawards, regardless of size, for all subawards not included in the original proposal (see 2 CFR 200.308(c)(6)). For all subawards, prime recipients must confirm that they have conducted a risk-assessment of each of the proposed subrecipient(s) by name; and verify that each subrecipient does not have active exclusions in SAM and does not appear on the Suspension and Debarment List.
The closing date and time for receipt of proposal submissions is August 25, 2021, at 11:59 p.m., EDT, via
In accordance with 2 CFR part 200, the names of entities submitting proposals, as well as proposal contents and evaluations, will be kept confidential to the extent permissible by law. Any information that the applicant wishes to have considered as confidential, privileged, or proprietary should be clearly marked as such in the proposal. If an applicant chooses to include confidential or proprietary information in the proposal, it will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by law.
1. The OPPE may not assist individual applicants by reviewing draft proposals or providing advice on how to respond to evaluation criteria. However, the OPPE will respond to questions from individual applicants regarding eligibility criteria, administrative issues related to the submission of the proposal, and requests for clarification regarding the announcement. Any questions should be submitted to
2. The OPPE will post questions and answers relating to this funding opportunity during its open period on the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section of our website:
3. Visit our website at:
4. Applicants selected for funding must inform their participants that USDA, or any of its third-party representatives, may contact them for quality assurance.
Only eligible entities whose proposals meet the threshold criteria in Section III of this announcement will be reviewed according to the evaluation criteria set forth below. Applicants should explicitly and fully address these criteria as part of their proposal package. Each proposal will be evaluated under the regulations established under 2 CFR part 200.
The Panel will use a point system to rate each proposal, awarding a maximum of 105 points for nonprofit and community-based organizations (70 points, plus an additional 35 priority points for secretarial priorities) and 100 points for all other applicants (70 points, plus an additional 30 discretionary points for secretarial priorities). Each proposal will be reviewed by at least two members of the Panel. Panel members will review and score all submitted applications. The Panel will numerically score and rank each application. Funding decisions will be based on the Panel's rank score. Final funding decisions will be made by the designated approving official and are not appealable.
Please be patient as processing all submitted applications, vetting organizations, proposal reviews, approval process, and agreement creation is a lengthy process. All applicants will be notified electronically of their application status when final selections have been made and will be provided an opportunity for application
All eligible applications will be reviewed by the Panel. Panel members are selected based upon training and experience in assisting socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers. This assistance includes, but is not limited to, bringing increased awareness of USDA's programs and services in underserved communities, outreach, technical assistance, cooperative extension services, civil
1. Successful applicants will be notified by the OPPE via telephone, email, and/or postal mail that its proposed project has been recommended for award. The notification will be sent to the
2. Within 10 days of award status notification, unsuccessful applicants may request feedback on their application. Feedback will be provided as expeditiously as possible. Feedback sessions will be scheduled contingent upon the number of requests and in accordance with 7 CFR 2500.026.
All awards resulting from this solicitation will be administered in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards codified at 2 CFR part 200, as supplemented by USDA implementing regulations at 2 CFR parts 400 and 415, and the OPPE Federal Financial Assistance Programs—General Award Administrative Procedures, 7 CFR part 2500. In compliance with its obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 13166, it is the policy of the OPPE to provide timely and meaningful access for persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) to projects, programs, and activities administered by Federal grant recipients. Recipient organizations must comply with these obligations upon acceptance of grant agreements as written in the OPPE's Terms and Conditions. Following these guidelines is essential to the success of our mission to improve access to USDA programs for socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers.
Your approved statement of work, timeline, and budget are your guiding documents in carrying out the activities of your project and for your reporting requirements. Familiarize yourself with USDA's grants management system called ezFedGrants:
1. Semi-annual Progress Reports and Financial Reports will be required as follows:
•
•
2. Final Progress and Financial Reports will be required upon project completion. The Final Progress Report must include a summary of the project or activity throughout the funding period, achievements of the project or activity, and a discussion of overall successes and issues experienced in conducting the project or project activities. It should convey the impact your project had on the communities you served and discuss the project's accomplishments in achieving expected outcomes. This requirement includes, but is not limited to, the number of new USDA applicants as a result of your award, the number of approved applicants for USDA programs and services, increased awareness of USDA programs and services, etc.
3. The final Financial Report should consist of a complete SF-425 indicating the total costs of the project. Final Progress and Financial Reports must be submitted to the designated OPPE official via ezFedGrants within 120 days after the completion of the award period as follows:
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice of Solicitation of Applications.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (the Agency) Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) announces the acceptance of grant, guaranteed loan, and combined grant and guaranteed loan applications under the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). The REAP program helps agricultural producers and rural small businesses reduce energy costs and consumption and helps meet the Nation's critical energy needs. Applications for REAP may be submitted at any time throughout the year. This notice announces the deadlines, dates, and times that applications must be received in order to be considered for federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 REAP funds. The NOSA is being issued prior to passage of a final appropriations act for FY22 to allow potential applicants time to submit applications for financial assistance under the program and to give the Agency time to process applications within the current FY. The administrative requirements in effect at the time the application window closes for a competition will be applicable to each type of funding available under REAP. All REAP applications competing for FY22 funding will be scored according to the scoring criteria listed in the final REAP rule. Applicants who have already filed REAP applications for FY22 will be allowed to provide additional information if necessary for application scoring; the modification will not be treated as a new application nor will it alter the submission date of record.
Applications for the Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Assistance (EA/REDA) grant program must be submitted via
You are encouraged to contact your USDA Rural Development State Energy Coordinator well in advance of the application deadline to discuss your project and ask any questions about the application process. Contact information for Energy Coordinators can be found at
Program guidance and application forms may be obtained at
Deb Yocum, Program Management Division, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 2920 East Court Street, Suite 3, Beatrice, NE 68310, 402-499-1198 or email
• Assisting Rural communities recover economically from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly disadvantaged communities.
• Ensuring all rural residents have equitable access to RD programs and benefits from RD funded projects.
• Reducing climate pollution and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic support to rural communities.
A.
(1) To ensure that small projects have a fair opportunity to compete for the funding and consistent with the priorities set forth in the 7 U.S.C. 8107, the Agency will set-aside not less than 20 percent of the FY funds until June 30, 2022 to fund grants of $20,000 or less. Each Rural Development State Office will receive a set-aside allocation of funds for grant requests of $20,000 or less, which includes combination grant and guaranteed loan requests where the grant amount requested is $20,000 or less. Complete grant applications requesting $20,000 or less, including the grant portion of a combined grant and guaranteed loan request, received by October 31, 2021 will compete for approximately 50 percent of the state's set-aside allocation, and those received by March 31, 2022 will compete for the second 50 percent (approximately) of the state's set-aside allocation. Any unobligated balance of funds remaining in state set-aside accounts will be pooled to the National Office for a national set-aside competition. Obligation of set-aside grant funds will take place through June 30, 2022.
(2) Each Rural Development State Office will also receive an unrestricted allocation of grant funds that can be used to fund any RES/EEI grant application regardless of the amount of grant requested, including the grant portion of a combination grant and guaranteed loan request, that is received by March 31, 2022. Any unobligated balance of funds remaining in state unrestricted accounts will be pooled to the National Office for a national competition of funds. Obligation of unrestricted grant funds will take place through September 30, 2022.
B.
C.
A.
(1) Applicants can compete and be awarded only one RES grant and one EEI grant in a FY, which includes the grant portion of a combined funding request. The Federal grant portion cannot exceed 25 percent of total eligible project costs. The maximum amount of grant assistance to an entity will not exceed $750,000 in a FY.
(2) For RES grants, the minimum grant is $2,500 and the maximum is $500,000. For EEI grants, the minimum grant is $1,500 and the maximum grant is $250,000. These minimum and maximum limits also apply to the grant portion of a combined funding request.
(3) For RES/EEI/EEE loan guarantees or the loan guarantee portion of a combined funding request, the minimum REAP guaranteed loan amount is $5,000 and the maximum amount of a guaranteed loan to be provided to a borrower is $25 million. Guaranteed loan requests will not exceed 75 percent of total eligible project costs, with any Federal grant portion, as applicable, not to exceed 25 percent of total eligible project costs.
B.
(1) Applicants may submit only one EA grant application and one REDA grant application in a FY. Separate applications must be submitted for EA funding and REDA funding. If an application is submitted for both EA and REDA funding or if an application's scope of work includes both EA and REDA activities, it will be determined ineligible for competition. The maximum aggregate amount of EA and REDA grant awards to any one recipient cannot exceed $100,000 in a FY.
(2) Applicants that have received one or more grants under this program must have made satisfactory progress per 7 CFR 4280.110(a) before being considered for funding.
(3) The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Public Law 115-334 (The 2018 Farm Bill) mandates that the recipient of an EA grant must require the agricultural producer or rural small business receiving the energy audit to pay at least 25 percent of the cost of the energy audit, which shall be retained by the grantee for the cost of the audit.
The eligibility requirements for the applicant, borrower, lender, and project (as applicable) are clarified in 7 CFR 4280 subpart B and in 7 CFR 5001 and are summarized in this notice. Failure to meet the eligibility criteria by the time of the competition window will preclude the application from competing until all eligibility criteria have been met.
A.
B.
C.
D.
(1)
(2)
(3)
In determining eligibility for the applicant, project or use of funds, any project applying for funding under the REAP program and proposing to produce, procure, supply or market any component of the hemp plant or hemp related by-products, or provide technical assistance related to such products, must have a valid license from an approved State, Tribal or Federal plan pursuant to Section 10113 of the 2018 Farm Bill, be in compliance with regulations published by the Agricultural Marketing Service at 7 CFR 990, and meet any applicable FDA and DEA regulatory requirements. Verification of valid hemp licenses will occur prior to award. In addition, all projects proposing to use biomass feedstock from any part of the hemp plant must demonstrate assurance of an adequate supply of the feedstock.
Given the absence of Federal oversight or regulations governing the 2014 Farm Bill pilot program, Rural Development will not award funds to any project proposing to produce, procure, supply or market any component of the hemp plant or hemp related by-products, or provide technical assistance related to such products, produced under 2014 Farm Bill authority.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
(1)
(2)
(3)
A.
B.
C.
A.
B.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
(1)
(2)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.8 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable July 20, 2021.
Kristen Johnson and John Hoffner (Russia) or Ariela Garvett (Trinidad and Tobago), AD/CVD Operations, Offices III and IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793, (202) 482-3315, and (202) 482-3609, respectively.
On June 30, 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of urea ammonium nitrate solutions (UAN) from the Russian Federation (Russia) and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago), filed in proper form on behalf of CF Industries Nitrogen, LLC and its subsidiaries, Terra Nitrogen, Limited Partnership and Terra International (Oklahoma) LLC (collectively, the petitioner), a domestic producer of UAN.
On July 6 and 13, 2021, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of Russia (GOR) and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (GOTT) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of UAN in Russia and Trinidad and Tobago, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing UAN in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry
Because the Petitions were filed on June 30, 2021, the periods of investigation (POI) are January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020.
The merchandise covered by these investigations are UAN from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
On July 6, 2021, Commerce requested further information and clarification from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the record of the concurrent antidumping (AD) investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOR and the GOTT of the receipt of the Petitions and provided it the opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own 2020 production of the domestic like product.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.
Because Russia and Trinidad and Tobago are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; impacts on market share; underselling and price suppression; lost sales and revenues; flatlined production, capacity utilization, and employment variables; and declining financial performance.
Based upon the examination of the Petitions on UAN from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of UAN from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOR and the GOTT, respectively. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all the alleged
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all the alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
The petitioner named four companies in Russia and one company in Trinidad and Tobago as producers/exporters of UAN.
With respect to Russia, in the event Commerce determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of UAN from Russia during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers listed in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix.
On July 9, 2021, Commerce released CBP data for U.S. imports of UAN from Russia under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation.
With respect to Trinidad and Tobago, although Commerce normally relies on import data from CBP to determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in CVD investigations, the petitioner identified only one company as a producer/exporter of UAN in Trinidad and Tobago, Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Limited (MHTL), and provided information from independent sources as support.
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above, unless an exception applies. Commerce intends to finalize its decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of the publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been provided to the GOR and GOTT via ACCESS.
Furthermore, to the extent practicable, Commerce will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of UAN from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, standalone submission; under limited circumstances Commerce will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Commerce website at
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by these investigations is all mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammonia solution, regardless of nitrogen concentration by weight, and regardless of the presence of additives, such as corrosion inhibiters and soluble micro or macronutrients (UAN).
Subject merchandise includes merchandise matching the above description that has been processed in a third country, including by commingling, diluting, adding or removing additives, or performing any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the subject country.
The scope also includes UAN that is commingled with UAN from sources not subject to these investigations. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of these investigations.
The covered merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 3102.80.0000. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable July 20, 2021.
Laura Griffith at (202) 482-6430 (the Russian Federation (Russia)) or Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482-6412 or Dakota Potts at (202) 482-0223 (the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago)); AD/CVD Operations, Offices III and IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On June 30, 2021, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions (the Petitions) concerning imports of Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions (UAN) from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago, filed in proper form on behalf of CF Industries Nitrogen, LLC and its subsidiaries, Terra Nitrogen, Limited Partnership and Terra International (Oklahoma) LLC (collectively, the petitioner), domestic producers of UAN.
On July 2 and 6, 2021, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of UAN from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the UAN industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested AD investigations.
Because the Petitions were filed on June 30, 2021, the period of investigation (POI) for the Russia and Trinidad and Tobago AD investigations is April 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). The petitioner argued that Commerce should determine in this investigation that Russia is a nonmarket economy (NME) within the meaning of section 771(18)(A) of the Act and should calculate normal value (NV) for Russia in accordance with its NME methodology.
The product covered by these investigations is UAN from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
On July 6, 2021, Commerce requested further information and clarification from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of UAN to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe UAN, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 9, 2021, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 19, 2021. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of each of the AD investigations.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own 2020 production of the domestic like product.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; impacts on market share; underselling and price suppression; lost sales and revenues; flatlined production, capacity utilization, and employment variables; and declining financial performance.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of UAN from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.
For Russia and Trinidad and Tobago, the petitioner based export price (EP) on transaction-specific average unit values (AUVs) derived from official import statistics for imports under HTSUS subheading 3102.80.0000 obtained from the ITC's Dataweb and tied to ship
For Trinidad and Tobago, the petitioner stated that home market prices were not available and, as such, based NV on third country prices using Canadian import AUVs for the POI.
For Russia, the petition included NV using both the NME and market economy (ME) methodologies.
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selections and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Russian producers/exporters was not reasonably available, the petitioner used its own product-specific consumption rates as a surrogate to value Russian manufacturers' FOPs.
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of UAN from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for UAN from Trinidad and Tobago is 158.81 percent.
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of UAN from Russia and Trinidad and Tobago are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
In the Petitions, the petitioner identified four companies as producers/exporters of UAN in Russia (
Producers/exporters of UAN from Russia that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from Enforcement and Compliance (E&C)'s website at
In the Petitions, the petitioner identified one company in Trinidad and Tobago as producer/exporter of UAN (
Parties wishing to comment on respondent selection for Trinidad and Tobago must do so within three business days of the publication of this notice in the
Comments on respondent selection must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
Upon applying an NME methodology, Commerce will consider assigning separate rates to exporters and producers. In order to obtain separate-
Upon applying an NME methodology, Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Russia and Trinidad and Tobago via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that subject imports are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately.
Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial section D questionnaire response.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; Commerce will grant untimely filed requests for the
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by these investigations is all mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammonia solution, regardless of nitrogen concentration by weight, and regardless of the presence of additives, such as corrosion inhibiters and soluble micro or macronutrients (UAN).
Subject merchandise includes merchandise matching the above description that has been processed in a third country, including by commingling, diluting, adding or removing additives, or performing any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the subject country.
The scope also includes UAN that is commingled with UAN from sources not subject to these investigations. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of these investigations.
The covered merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 3102.80.0000. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for a public meeting of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee).
This Webex meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 11, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The deadline for members of the public to register to participate in or listen to the meeting is 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 4, 2021.
The meeting will be held by Webex. The Webex link, and call-in number, and passcode will be provided by email to registrants. Requests to register and any written comments should be submitted to: Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, International Trade Administration by email:
Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, International Trade Administration by email
The Committee was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). It provides advice to the Secretary of Commerce on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and provides advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. For more information about the Committee visit:
The Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services will post the final agenda on the Committee website
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Notice of open meeting.
The Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 28, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. until 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time.
The meeting will be a virtual meeting via webinar. Please note admittance instructions under the
Jeff Brewer, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Telephone: (301) 975-2489, Email address:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. app., notice is hereby given that the ISPAB will hold an open meeting Tuesday, September 28, 2021 from 1:00 p.m. until 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time. All sessions will be open to the public. The ISPAB is authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278g-4, as amended, and advises the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on information security and privacy issues pertaining to Federal government information systems, including through review of proposed standards and guidelines developed by NIST. Details regarding the ISPAB's activities are available at
The agenda is expected to include the following items:
Note that agenda items may change without notice. The final agenda will be posted on the ISPAB event page at:
The ISPAB agenda will include a period, not to exceed fifteen minutes, for submitted questions or comments from the public between 3:45 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Submitted questions or comments from the public will be selected on a first-come, first-served basis and limited to five minutes per person.
Members of the public who wish to expand upon their submitted statements, those who had wished to submit a question or comment but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend the meeting via webinar are invited to submit written statements. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the ISPAB at any time. All written statements should be directed to the ISPAB Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory by email to:
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
Two minor revisions were made to the Recovery Data Form based on comments for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: On page 1 of the form, the statement “If a photo is taken, attach to form when submitted.” was added to the Photograph field; on the bottom of page 2 instruction was added to submit the form and photo (if taken) to U.S. Fish & Wildlife by email.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites comments on the extension and revision of an existing information collection: 0651-0064 (Patent Reexaminations, Supplemental Examinations, and Post Patent Submissions). The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the information collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this information collection must be received on or before September 24, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Parikha Mehta, Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-3248; or by email to
The USPTO is required by 35 U.S.C. 131 and 151 to examine applications and, when appropriate, allow applications and issue them as patents. Chapter 30 of Title 35 U.S.C. provides that any person at any time may file a request for reexamination by the USPTO of any claim of a patent on the basis of prior art cited under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 301. Once initiated, the reexamination proceedings under Chapter 30 are substantially
In addition, 35 U.S.C. 257 permits a patent owner to request supplemental examination of a patent by the USPTO to consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent. The regulations outlining supplemental examination are found at 37 CFR 1.601-1.625.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act terminated
The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 301 and 37 CFR 1.501 govern the ability of a person to submit into the file of an issued patent (1) prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which the person making the submission believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of the issued patent and (2) statements of the owner of the issued patent filed in a proceeding before a Federal court or the USPTO in which the owner of the issued patent took a position on the scope of any claim of the issued patent.
This information collection covers information contained in: (1) Requests for
The purpose of this information collection is to facilitate requests for
This renewal request incorporates an item that was previously approved under OMB control number 0651-0067 (Post Patent Public Submissions), specifically `information disclosure citations'. The title of this information collection is being updated to reflect that change with the inclusion of “Post Patent Submissions”. As the information disclosure citation was the only item contained in 0651-0067, that information collection will be discontinued.
The items in this information collection may be submitted online using the Patent Electronic Systems (EFS-Web or Patent Center), or on paper by either mail or hand delivery.
• PTO/SB/42 (Information Disclosure Citation in a Patent).
• PTO/SB/57 (Request for Ex Parte Reexamination Transmittal Form).
• PTO/SB/59 (Request for Supplemental Examination Transmittal Form).
There are nine filing fees associated with this information collection, which are broken down by undiscounted entity, small entity, and micro entity. These fees are listed in the table below.
The USPTO expects that at most 2% of the responses in this information collection will be submitted by mail. The USPTO estimates that the average postage cost for a mailed submission, using a Priority Mail 2-day flat rate legal envelope, will be $8.25. The USPTO estimates approximately 17 submissions per year may be mailed to the USPTO, for a total postage cost of $140 per year.
The USPTO is soliciting public comments to:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information,
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
All comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. The USPTO will include or summarize each comment in the request to OMB to approve this information collection. Before including an address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information (PII) in a comment, be aware that the entire comment—including PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask in your comment to withhold PII from public view, the USPTO cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on a new proposed collection of information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by September 24, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2021-0020, by any of the following methods:
Cynthia Gillham, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7991, or by email to:
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency proposed surveys. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
CPSC is authorized under section 5(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2054(a), to conduct studies and investigations relating to the causes and prevention of deaths, accidents, injuries, illnesses, other health impairments, and economic losses associated with consumer products. Section 5(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2054(b), further provides that CPSC may conduct research, studies, and investigations on the safety of consumer products, and develop product safety test methods and testing devices.
CPSC proposes to conduct an online survey to gather data on consumer risk perception and response to hazard communications from 5,000 respondents. The study population will be comprised of individuals age 18 and over from across the United States. In this proposed survey, CPSC seeks information about consumer product use, including, but not limited to, the following topics:
• Consumers' beliefs, experiences, and tendencies regarding product safety;
• whether consumers pay attention to instructions that come with products;
• whether consumers read safety information and labels;
• to what extent consumers comply with safety messages;
• how product type influences consumers' attitude and behavior;
• what information resources consumers rely on before buying a product;
• how product safety ranks among other factors consumers consider;
• reasons consumers comply or do not comply with the safety messages; and
• how consumers respond if they encounter a safety recall of the product they own.
CPSC has contracted with Carahsoft/Qualtrics, to develop and execute this project for CPSC. Information obtained through this survey is not intended to be considered nationally representative.
CPSC intends to use the study findings to develop a better understanding of the mechanisms and types of safety messages that consumers receive, how they respond, and what affects their response. Specifically, responses to the items in this survey will provide CPSC staff with information on whether consumers read and comply with various types of safety information that comes with products they use; the causes of consumer noncompliance with product safety information; whether consumers share product safety information with other users of their products; what sources of information they rely on to decide if a product is safe to use; whether safety is a priority in their purchasing decisions; how they responded to safety notices and recalls in the past; reasons for noncompliance with safety notices and recalls; and if and how the product type affects their risk perception and behaviors. Findings from this survey will provide CPSC with information on ways to increase consumer understanding of, and adherence to, safety messaging and help CPSC develop more effective messaging that will convey critical information about product hazards.
We estimate the number of respondents to the survey to be 5,000. The online survey for the proposed study will take approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to complete. We estimate the total annual burden hours for respondents to be 1,250 hours. The monetized hourly cost is $38.60, as defined by total compensation for all civilian workers, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, as of December 2020. Accordingly, we estimate the total cost burden to be $48,250 (1,250 hours × $38.60). The total cost to the federal government for the contract to design and conduct the proposed survey is $150,978.
CPSC invites comments on these topics:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of CPSC's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of CPSC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in accordance with section 743(c) of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, is announcing the availability of CPSC's service contract inventory for fiscal year (FY) 2019, CPSC's FY 2018 service contract inventory analysis, and the plan for analyzing CPSC's FY 2019 service contract inventory. The FY 2019 inventory provides information on service contract actions that exceeded $25,000 that CPSC made in FY 2019.
Eddie Ahmad, Procurement Analyst, Division of Procurement Services, Division of Procurement Services, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. Telephone: 301-504-7884; email:
On December 16, 2009, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Consolidated Appropriations Act), Public Law 111-117, became law. Section 743(a) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, titled, “Service Contract Inventory Requirement,” requires agencies to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an annual inventory of service contracts awarded or extended through the exercise of an option on or after April 1, 2010, and describes the contents of the inventory. The contents of the inventory must include:
(A) A description of the services purchased by the executive agency and the role the services played in achieving agency objectives, regardless of whether such a purchase was made through a contract or task order;
(B) The organizational component of the executive agency administering the contract, and the organizational component of the agency whose requirements are being met through contractor performance of the service;
(C) The total dollar amount obligated for services under the contract and the funding source for the contract;
(D) The total dollar amount invoiced for services under the contract;
(E) The contract type and date of award;
(F) The name of the contractor and place of performance;
(G) The number and work location of contractor and subcontractor employees, expressed as full-time equivalents for direct labor, compensated under the contract;
(H) Whether the contract is a personal services contract; and
(I) Whether the contract was awarded on a noncompetitive basis, regardless of date of award.
Consequently, through this notice, we are announcing that the CPSC's service contract inventory for FY 2019 is available to the public. The inventory provides information on service contract actions of more than $25,000 that the CPSC made in FY 2019. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the CPSC. OMB posted a consolidated government-wide Service Contract Inventory for FY 2019 at
Additionally, CPSC's Division of Procurement Services has posted
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense (DoD).
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 24, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Ms. Angela Duncan at the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, ATTN: Executive Services Directorate, Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 03F09-09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100 or call 571-372-7574.
Washington Headquarters Services, Department of Defense (DoD).
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 24, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of Information Management, ATTN: Ms. Angela Duncan; Executive Services Directorate, Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 25, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Melissa Siry, (202) 260-0926.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2021 for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are DeafBlind program—Assistance Listing Number 84.160D—to provide training to working interpreters in order to develop a new skill area or enhance an existing skill area. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1820-0018.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an
Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5094, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone (202) 245-6103. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
(a) Training interpreters to effectively interpret and transliterate between spoken language and sign language and to transliterate between spoken language and oral or tactile modes of communication;
(b) Ensuring the maintenance of the interpreting skills of qualified interpreters; and
(c) Providing opportunities for interpreters to raise their skill level competence in order to meet the highest standards approved by certifying associations.
This priority is:
The purpose of this priority is to fund projects that provide training to working interpreters in one of five specialty areas to effectively meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are DeafBlind receiving vocational rehabilitation (VR) services and/or services from other programs, such as independent living services, under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act). For the purposes of this priority, working interpreters must possess a baccalaureate degree and a minimum of three years of relevant experience as an interpreter. On a case-by-case basis and in consultation with RSA, educational equivalence may be used in place of the baccalaureate degree.
The specialty areas are—
(1) Increasing skills of novice interpreters;
(2) Trilingual interpreting (including Spanish) (
(3) Advanced skills for working interpreters;
(4) Cultural competency training, outreach, and recruitment of interpreters from multicultural backgrounds; and
(5) National projects in a field-initiated area, in topic areas such as—
(a) Interpreting in healthcare, including interpreting for hard-to-serve populations;
(b) Interpreting for individuals who are DeafBlind;
(c) Atypical language interpreting; and
(d) Other topics in new areas for which applicants demonstrate that the existing training is not adequately meeting the needs of interpreters working in the field of VR.
The following application requirements apply to all specialty areas under this priority. The Department encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements. Applicants must—
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will address the need for sign language interpreters in a specialty area. To address this requirement, applicants must—
(1) Present applicable data demonstrating the need for interpreters in the specialty area for which training will be developed by the project and delivered in at least three distinct, noncontiguous geographic areas, which may include the U.S. Territories;
(2) Present baseline data for the number or estimated number of working interpreters currently trained in the specialty area. In the event that an applicant proposes training in a new specialty area that does not currently exist or for which there are no baseline data, the applicant should provide an adequate explanation of the lack of reliable data and may report zero as a baseline; and
(3) Describe the competencies that working interpreters must demonstrate in order to provide high-quality services in the identified specialty area and explain how those competencies are based on practices that demonstrate a rationale or are supported by promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1).
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Design,” how the proposed project will—
(1) Develop a new training program or stand-alone modules and conduct a pilot by the end of the first year of the project. Applicants must provide justification in their application if they believe additional time may be necessary to fully develop and pilot the curricula before the end of the first year. The training program or stand-alone modules must contain remote learning
(2) Deliver the training or stand-alone modules remotely to at least three distinct, noncontiguous geographic areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of these application requirements in years two, three, four, and five of the project. Applicants may deliver in-person training, as appropriate, to support participants' application of knowledge, skills, and competencies gained through online training. Applicants may decide when to safely offer in-person training and must be prepared to pivot between in-person and remote learning during the project, as needed, throughout the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic;
(3) Provide skilled, diverse, and experienced leaders, mentors, facilitators, coaches, and subject matter experts, as appropriate for the specialty area, to participants, as needed. This may include, but is not limited to, one-on-one instruction to address specific areas identified by an advisor as needing further practice, and providing written feedback from observed interpreting situations and mentoring sessions, from deaf consumers, from trained mentors, and from others, as appropriate;
(4) Develop a self-directed track and make it available to the public for independent remote learning by the end of the second year of the project. Applicants must develop a curriculum guide for each module and make available relevant materials from the training program. Applicants may offer CEUs to participants who successfully complete the self-directed track;
(5) Be based on current research and make use of practices that demonstrate a rationale or are supported by promising evidence. To meet this requirement, applicants must describe—
(i) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and practices that demonstrate a rationale or are supported by promising evidence in the development and delivery of training and in the development of products and materials;
(ii) How the proposed project will ensure interaction between project participants and individuals with disabilities who are deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind and have a range of communication skills, from those with limited language skills to those with high-level, professional language skills, as appropriate.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” applicants must—
(1) Demonstrate how the project will ensure equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups who have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability;
(2) Describe the criteria that will be used to identify applicants for participation in the program, including any pre-assessments that may be used to determine the skill, knowledge base, and competencies of the working interpreter;
(3) Describe how the project will conduct outreach
(4) Describe how the project will provide feedback, resources, and next steps to applicants who may not be accepted into the program due to insufficient skills, knowledge base, and competencies;
(5) Describe how the program will identify skilled, diverse, and experienced leaders, mentors, facilitators, coaches, and subject matter experts, as appropriate for the specialty area, and develop necessary training for them to improve and enhance interpreting skills in their respective areas, as well as in remote delivery, as needed. Applicants must also describe how they will grow the pool of experienced personnel and create opportunities for participants to advance as mentors, coaches, and facilitators in the program;
(6) Describe the approach that will be used to enable more working interpreters to participate in and successfully complete the training program, specifically participants who need to work while in the program, have child care or elder care considerations, or live in geographically isolated areas;
(7) Describe how the project will incorporate adult learning principles and practices that demonstrate a rationale or are supported by promising evidence for adult learners;
(8) Demonstrate how the project is of sufficient scope, intensity, and duration to adequately prepare working interpreters in the identified specialty area of training. To address this requirement, applicants must describe how—
(i) The components of the proposed project will support working interpreters' acquisition and enhancement of the competencies identified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of these application requirements;
(ii) The components of the project will provide working interpreters opportunities to apply their content knowledge in a variety of practical settings;
(iii) The proposed project will establish induction experiences in the specialty area for participants as a requirement for completion in the training program, to the extent possible. The induction environment must be designed in such a way that meets the communication preferences of individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind. Applicants must be prepared to pivot between in-person and remote inductions during the project, as needed, throughout the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of participants completing inductions may be based on availability of opportunities and trained personnel necessary to support them. Applicants may determine the appropriate scope and length of time for the induction and must work to increase the availability of inductions in their respective specialty area, where possible;
(9) Demonstrate how the proposed project will actively engage representation from consumers, consumer organizations, and service providers, especially State VR agencies and their partners, interpreters, interpreter educators, and individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind, in all aspects of the project; and
(10) Describe how the project will conduct dissemination, coordination, and communication activities. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will—
(i) Disseminate information to working interpreters about training available in specialized areas and to State VR agencies and their partners, American Job Centers, and other workforce partners about how to locate specialized interpreters in their State and local areas;
(ii) Establish a state-of-the-art website or modify an existing website for communicating with participants and stakeholders and ensure that all material developed by the grant and posted on
(iii) Disseminate information about the project, including, but not limited to, products such as training curricula, presentations, reports, effective practices for training working interpreters in specialized areas, and other relevant information through the NCRTM;
(iv) In the final year of the budget period, ensure that all training materials have been provided to the NCRTM and the website and IT platform can be sustained, or coordinate with RSA to transition the website to the NCRTM;
(v) Establish one or more communities of practice in the specialty area of training that focuses on project activities and acts as a vehicle for communication and exchange of information among participants in the program and other relevant stakeholders;
(vi) Communicate, collaborate, and coordinate with other relevant Department-funded projects, as applicable;
(vii) Maintain ongoing communication with the RSA project officer and other RSA staff as required;
(viii) Communicate, collaborate, and coordinate, as appropriate, with key staff in State VR agencies, such as the State Coordinators for the Deaf; State and local partner programs; consumer organizations and associations, including those that represent individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, and DeafBlind; and relevant RSA partner organizations and associations; and
(ix) Disseminate to associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degree ASL-English programs, as well as to relevant Department-funded programs and Federal partners, as applicable, the training material and products for incorporation into existing curricula, as well as products, effective practices for training working interpreters in specialized areas, challenges and solutions, results achieved, and lessons learned. To satisfy this requirement, the grantee must develop participant guides, implementation materials, toolkits, manuals, and other relevant material for interpreter educators and others, as appropriate, to incorporate or build into existing programs.
(d) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan. To meet this requirement, the evaluation plan must describe—
(1) Standards and targets for measuring the effectiveness of the program;
(2) An approach for measuring knowledge, skills, and competencies before and after successful completion of training;
(3) An approach for measuring outcomes for participants that completed an induction compared to those who did not prior to successfully completing the program;
(4) An approach for gathering information from participants about their estimated percentage of workload interpreting for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are DeafBlind receiving VR services and/or services from other programs, such as independent living services, before and after specialty training;
(5) An approach for incorporating oral and written feedback from trainers and deaf consumers and any feedback from coaching or mentoring sessions conducted with the participants;
(6) Methodologies, including instruments, data collection methods, and analyses that will be used to evaluate the project and how the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data to demonstrate whether the project activities achieved their intended outcomes;
(7) Measures of progress in implementation, including the extent to which the project activities and products have reached their intended recipients, measures of intended outcomes or results in order to evaluate those activities, and how well the goals and objectives of the proposed project, as described in the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), have been met;
(8) How the evaluation will be coordinated, implemented, and revised, as needed, during the project. The applicant must designate at least one individual with sufficient dedicated time, demonstrated experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to coordinate and conduct the evaluation. This may include, but is not limited to, making revisions post award in order to reflect any changes or clarifications, as needed, to the model and to the evaluation design and instrumentation with the logic model (
(9) How evaluation results will be used to examine the effectiveness of the training. To address this requirement, applicants must provide an approach for determining—
(i) What practice(s) was most effective in training working interpreters in the respective specialty area and what data demonstrates the practice(s) was effective; and
(ii) What practice(s) was most effective in narrowing working interpreters' skill gaps and what data demonstrates the practice(s) was effective.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment with the project from persons who are members of groups that have historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability;
(2) Describe any proposed consultants or contractors named in the application and their areas of expertise and provide a rationale to demonstrate the need;
(3) Describe costs associated with technology, including, but not limited to, maintaining an online learning platform, state-of-the-art archiving and dissemination platform, and communication tools (
(4) The applicant and any identified partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities.
(f) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how applicants will ensure that—
(1) The project's intended outcomes, including the evaluation, will be achieved on time and within budget, through—
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities of key project personnel, consultants, and contractors, as applicable;
(ii) Procedures to track and ensure completion of the action steps, timelines, and milestones established for key project activities, requirements, and deliverables;
(iii) Internal monitoring processes to ensure that the project is being
(iv) Internal financial management controls to ensure accurate and timely obligations, drawdowns, and reporting of grant funds, as well as monitoring contracts, in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200 and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.
(2) The allocation of key project personnel, consultants, and contractors, as applicable, including levels of effort of key personnel that are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes, including an assurance that key personnel will have enough availability to ensure timely communications with stakeholders and RSA;
(3) The products and services are of high quality, relevance, and usefulness, in both content and delivery;
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives; and
(5) Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with nondiscrimination requirements contained in the Federal civil rights laws.
(g) Address the following application requirements. Applicants must—
(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and short and long-term outcomes of the proposed project;
(2) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative; and
(3) Provide an assurance that any interpreters trained or retrained under this program will meet the standards of competency for a qualified professional, defined in 34 CFR 396.4(c) as an individual who has: (i) Met existing certification or evaluation requirements equivalent to the highest standards approved by certifying associations; and (ii) successfully demonstrated interpreting skills that reflect the highest standards approved by certifying associations through prior work experience.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Secretary intends to fund a total of eight national projects in FFY 2021. The Secretary intends to fund one project in each specialty area, (1) through (4), listed under the Absolute Priority section of this notice, provided that we receive applications of sufficient quality. In addition, the Secretary intends to fund four projects in specialty area (5). As a result, the Secretary may fund applications out of rank order. In the event that there are no applications submitted or deemed eligible to fund in specialty areas (1) through (4), the Secretary may fund more than four projects in specialty area (5).
In deciding whether to continue funding the fourth and fifth years, the Department will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a). In addition, as part of the review of the application narrative and annual performance reports, RSA will consider the degree to which the program demonstrates substantial progress toward completing project activities outlined in the priority, as well as the timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of the grant award have been or are being met by the grantee, including the submission of annual performance reports, and adherence to fiduciary responsibilities related to the budget submitted in the application per 2 CFR part 200, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards,” and the Education Department General Administrative Regulations.
1.
2. a.
b.
c.
3.
1.
2.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
1.
(a)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent to which—
(i) The proposed interpreter training project was developed in consultation with State Vocational Rehabilitation agencies and their related agencies and consumers;
(ii) The training is appropriate to the needs of both individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are DeafBlind and to the needs of public and private agencies that provide services to either individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing or individuals who are DeafBlind in the geographical area to be served by the training project;
(iii) Any curricula for the training of interpreters includes evidence-based practices and promising practices when evidence-based practices are not available;
(iv) There is a working relationship between the interpreter training project and State Vocational Rehabilitation agencies and their related agencies, and consumers; and
(v) There are opportunities for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are DeafBlind to provide input regarding the design and management of the training project.
(b)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the project design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives.
(iii) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project.
(c)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of services to be provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project services, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.
(d)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are
(e)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of personnel who will carry out the proposed project and the adequacy of project resources for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel and adequacy of resources, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
(ii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(f)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
5.
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115—232) (2 CFR 200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit annual performance reports that provide the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
For the purposes of GPRA and Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, we have established the following program measures:
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 24, 2021.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Michael Fong, (202) 245-8407.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance
Office of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education.
Request for information.
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) is requesting information in the form of written comments that may include information, research, and suggestions regarding the administration of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. The Office of the Under Secretary solicits these comments to identify operational improvements to the PSLF program and to inform determinations about technical improvements, borrower experiences, policy considerations, or other factors that should be considered to improve access to PSLF.
We must receive your comments on or before September 24, 2021.
Submit your response to this request for information (RFI) through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. We will not accept submissions by hand delivery, fax, or email. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only one time. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in informing the Department's administration of the PSLF program, we encourage you to clearly identify the question number or topic (
•
•
This is a request for information only. This RFI is not a request for proposals (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP or a notice inviting applications. This RFI does not commit the Department to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, we are not seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. The Department will not pay for any information or administrative costs that you may incur in responding to this RFI. The documents and information submitted in response to this RFI become the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned.
Mr. Jean-Didier Gaina, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Room 2C172, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7551. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
It is critical for our Nation to maintain a highly educated public service workforce to serve as teachers, nurses, physicians, servicemembers in our military, social workers, legal aid attorneys, and first responders, and in a wide range of other roles that serve our communities. Concerns about shortages across the public sector and public service workforce have persisted for decades.
In response to these concerns about workforce shortages and rising student debt burdens, Congress enacted the College Cost Reduction and Access Act (Pub. L. 110-84) in 2007, creating a range of new benefits and protections for student loan borrowers, including the PSLF program. PSLF offers loan cancellation for Federal student loan borrowers who make 120 qualifying payments made while engaging in eligible public service work.
The Department is committed to addressing the barriers to attaining PSLF and to providing debt relief to public service workers. To that end, the Department has announced its plans to establish negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare proposed regulations for programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (86 FR 28299), including the PSLF program under 34 CFR 685.219. However, the Department recognizes that there may be improvements it can make in the operational administration of the program outside of the regulatory process. Through this RFI, the Department seeks comments from the public to identify such operational opportunities to strengthen the PSLF program. For example, we are interested in ways that we might eliminate administrative barriers to borrowers receiving PSLF. Below, we provide questions to guide responses to this RFI. Although we do not intend to respond to comments received in response to this RFI, public input may inform non-
After Congress enacted the College Cost Reduction and Access Act 14 years ago, the Department promulgated regulations to implement the PSLF program. The Department also entered into a contract with the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (d/b/a FedLoan Servicing) to serve as the sole specialty student loan servicer handling borrowers who signal intent to pursue PSLF. Under 34 CFR 685.219, the Department established and subsequently revised the criteria a borrower must satisfy in order to have debts cancelled under PSLF.
Specifically, these regulations require a student loan borrower to satisfy five elements. To receive PSLF, a borrower must—
• Be employed by a U.S. Federal, State, local, or Tribal government or not-for-profit organization;
• Work full-time for that agency or organization or the equivalent of full-time across multiple agencies or organizations;
• Have Direct Loans (or consolidate other Federal student loans into a Direct Loan);
• Repay those loans under an income-driven repayment or standard repayment plan; and
• Make 120 qualifying payments.
From 2007 through 2012, public service workers with student debt tracked their own progress toward meeting the requirements for PSLF. When borrowers working in public service had questions about eligibility, the Department's servicers were borrowers' primary source of information about PSLF. Beginning in 2012, the Department offered student loan borrowers the opportunity to submit an Employer Certification Form (ECF) as a way for borrowers to provide documentation of qualifying employment throughout their service and to ensure their employer was a qualifying employer. In November 2020, the Department combined the ECF into a single application that also allows borrowers to have their status checked for PSLF and Temporary Expanded PSLF (TEPSLF) (Pub. L. 115-141), described below. As of November 30, 2020, student loan borrowers had submitted nearly 5 million individual ECFs.
On October 1, 2017, the first public service workers with student debt became eligible to receive PSLF. Since that time, the Department has discharged $452,691,032 in student debt owed by 5,467 individual public service workers as of April 30, 2021.
However, to date nearly 98 percent of student loan borrowers who have applied for PSLF did not receive forgiveness at the time of their application, however the majority of these borrowers have made some progress toward cancellation.
In response to the first reports of widespread PSLF application denials, Congress temporarily expanded PSLF to provide debt relief to a broader population of student loan borrowers, establishing TEPSLF. In the three years since TEPLSF was first established, an additional 2,962 public service workers have had approximately $130 million discharged, while more than 96 percent of TEPSLF applications have not resulted in forgiveness.
The Department recognizes the importance of making the PSLF requirements as clear as possible for millions of public service workers and is actively working to make improvements to the program's administration. To help inform those efforts, the Department is seeking input from the public on ways to strengthen the operational implementation of PSLF through changes outside of regulations. The deadline for these submissions is September 24, 2021.
The Department encourages comments from individual students and student loan borrowers; organizations representing students and student loan borrowers; labor unions and other organizations representing public service workers; legal services providers and other organizations that provide counseling or direct assistance to student loan borrowers; public service employers; researchers and policy experts; student loan market participants; institutions of higher education; and other members of the public.
The Department is interested in responses to the specific questions below, as well as the general concepts and topics identified as they relate to PSLF. The Department is also interested in responses describing individual student loan borrowers' experiences while working in public service or pursuing PSLF. When responding to this RFI, please address one or more of the following questions:
1. What are the direct and indirect effects of student debt on America's public service workforce?
2. What are the direct and indirect benefits of PSLF for America's public service workforce, including the effects of PSLF on individual borrowers, on the labor market, on communities, and on the populations served by public service workers?
3. Does PSLF provide a strong incentive for borrowers to engage in public service work? How are public service workers' employment decisions affected by their debt and by PSLF?
4. What borrower experiences should the Department and Congress consider when making improvements to PSLF?
5. What features of PSLF are most difficult for borrowers to navigate?
6. What role do loan servicers play in making it easier or harder for borrowers to access PSLF?
7. What barriers prevent public service workers with student debt from pursuing PSLF or receiving loan forgiveness under PSLF?
8. For borrowers who have or had loans other than from the Direct Loan program, what have your experiences been when trying to access or participate in PSLF?
9. How can communications about PSLF requirements be improved?
10. What are the common questions that borrowers have about PSLF?
11. What operational steps can the Department take to strengthen PSLF and better serve public service workers who currently owe student debt, including borrowers who have already applied for and been denied PSLF?
12. What steps can the Department take to improve borrowers' experiences in applying for PSLF?
13. What steps or improvements can servicers make to improve borrowers' experiences in applying for PSLF?
14. What can the Department do to better partner with employers to ensure that all borrowers know about the benefits of PSLF?
15. How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected borrowers' ability to access PSLF?
16. Are there any considerations about PSLF that the Department should bear in mind as it prepares for the end of the COVID-19 administrative forbearance on Direct Loans?
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Institute of Educational Science (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 24, 2021.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Erica Johnson, 202-245-7676.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This is the first of two clearance requests. This first package requests clearance to inform school districts of the study and collect teacher lists for the purpose of preparing to conduct a nationally representative survey in spring 2022. The second package, to be submitted at a later date, will request clearance for state, district, principal, and teacher survey instruments and the collection of these data.
Office of General Counsel, DOE.
Notice of inquiry on preparation of report to Congress on the Price-Anderson Act.
The Department of Energy (the “Department” or “DOE”) is requesting public comment concerning the need for continuation or modification of the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) as administered by DOE. The PAA establishes a system of financial protection that encourages the safe and secure operation of nuclear power and other nuclear activities and assures equitable compensation of victims in the event of a nuclear incident. Comments from the public will assist the Department in the preparation of its report on the PAA to be submitted to Congress by December 31, 2021, as required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended.
Written comments must be received by August 25, 2021.
You may submit comments to:
Stewart Forbes, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Civilian Nuclear Programs, U.S. Department of Energy, Room 6A-167, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585; Email:
The PAA was enacted in 1957 as an amendment to the AEA to encourage the development of nuclear power and nuclear activities by establishing a system of financial protection for persons who may be liable for and persons who may be injured by a nuclear incident.
As explained previously, the DOE PAA system of financial protection is in the form of an indemnification by DOE (“DOE Price-Anderson indemnification”) for legal liability for a nuclear incident or a precautionary evacuation arising from activity under a DOE contract. The DOE Price-Anderson indemnification: (1) Provides omnibus coverage of all persons who might be legally liable; (2) indemnifies fully all legal liability up to the statutory limit on such liability (as of 2018 approximately $13.7 billion, inflation-adjusted, for a nuclear incident in the United States
The PAA has been amended several times since enactment. The most recent amendment was the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005 (“2005 Amendments”), passed as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Title VI, Subtitle A).
DOE values input from the public on the efficacy and operation of the PAA. DOE is issuing this Notice of Inquiry (“Notice” or NOI) to solicit comments from the public and interested stakeholders to assist DOE in the development of its recommendations as to whether provisions of the PAA should be continued, modified, or eliminated.
This NOI is similar to a Notice of Inquiry published in 1997 (“1997 NOI”).
This NOI provides an update on significant changes in law or circumstances since the 1998 Report, including: (1) A summary of recommendations from the 1998 Report; (2) a summary of the 2005 Amendments; and (3) an update on the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (the “Convention” or CSC) as it relates to the PAA. To facilitate the preparation of public comments, the NOI also includes a non-exhaustive list of questions and topics to be considered and that may be addressed by DOE in the 2021 Report. Last, to further assist the public in preparing comments, DOE recommends review and reference to the 1997 NOI and the 1998 Report, both of which provide a comprehensive history and explanation of the PAA.
In 1988, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 (“1988 Amendments”), ushering in several new and updated provisions in the PAA: It increased the amount of the indemnification from $500 million to $9.43 billion; made the DOE indemnification mandatory in all DOE contracts involving the risk of a nuclear incident; and established a system of civil penalties for DOE contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers covered by the indemnification.
DOE issued the required report, recommending renewal of the PAA as being in the “best interests of DOE, its contractors, its subcontractors and suppliers, and the public.”
After the 1988 Amendments, the 2005 Amendments were the next substantial set of changes to the PAA. Passed as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2005 amended DOE authorities
In response to the 2005 Amendments, DOE amended its regulations in 10 CFR part 820, Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities, to implement the new requirements concerning civil penalty assessments against certain DOE contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers.
The preparation of the report to Congress on the need for continuation, modification or elimination of PAA provisions (which is the subject of this Notice) is one of the remaining actions to be taken by DOE in accordance with the 2005 Amendments.
The CSC is an international treaty adopted under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that establishes a global nuclear liability regime to address legal liability and compensation of victims in the event of a nuclear incident.
The fundamental purposes of the CSC and the PAA are the same: To support the safe and secure development of the nuclear industry while at the same time ensuring a system of prompt, equitable and meaningful compensation in the event of a nuclear incident. The CSC, like other nuclear liability treaties,
Equally important, in ratifying and implementing the CSC, Congress ensured the legal and operational framework of the PAA is not affected by the compensation system established by the CSC. Section 934(a) of EISA specifies that the United States' contributions to the CSC international supplementary fund cannot upset settled expectations based on the liability regime established under the PAA.
The following is a non-exhaustive list of questions that may be relevant to the Congressional mandate of section 170p. that DOE report on “the need for continuation or modification of the provisions of [the PAA] taking into account the condition of the nuclear industry, availability of private insurance, and the state of knowledge concerning nuclear safety at that time, among other relevant factors.”
DOE requests the public to submit comments that identify the specific provision(s) of the PAA to which a position is expressed, be specific in regard to the DOE activity(s) in question, and explain in as much detail as possible the rationale for the position.
1. Should the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification be continued without modification?
2. Should the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification be eliminated or made discretionary with respect to all or specific DOE activities? If discretionary, what procedures and criteria should be used to determine which activities or categories of activities should receive indemnification?
3. Should the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification continue to provide omnibus coverage of all persons legally liable for nuclear damage, or should it be restricted to DOE contractors or to DOE contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers?
4. If the DOE indemnification were not available for all or specified DOE activities, are there acceptable alternatives? Possible alternatives might include Public Law 85-804, section 162 of the AEA, general contract indemnity, no indemnity, or private insurance. To the extent possible in discussing alternatives, compare each alternative to the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification, including operation, cost, coverage, risk, and protection of potential claimants.
5. To what extent, if any, would the elimination of the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification affect the ability of DOE to perform its various missions? Explain your reasons for believing that performance of all or specific activities would or would not be affected.
6. To what extent, if any, would the elimination of the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification affect the willingness of existing or potential contractors to perform activities for DOE? Explain your reasons for believing that willingness to undertake all or specific activities would or would not be affected.
7. To what extent, if any, would the elimination of the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification affect the ability of DOE contractors to obtain goods and services from subcontractors and suppliers? Explain your reasons for believing that the availability of goods and services for all or specific DOE activities would or would not be affected.
8. To what extent, if any, would the elimination of the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification affect the ability of claimants to receive compensation for nuclear damage resulting from a DOE activity? Explain your reasons for believing the ability of claimants to be compensated for nuclear damage resulting from all or specific DOE activities would or would not be affected.
9. What is the existing and the potential availability of private insurance to cover liability for nuclear damage resulting from DOE activities? What would be the cost and the coverage of such insurance? To what extent, if any, would the availability, cost, and coverage be dependent on the type of activity involved? To what extent, if any, would the availability, cost, and coverage be dependent on whether the activity was a new activity or an existing activity? If the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification were not available, how would that affect the availability of insurance? Should DOE require contractors to obtain private insurance if the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification were not available?
10. Should the amount of the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification for all or specified DOE activities inside the United States (currently approximately $13.7 billion, adjusted for inflation), and outside the United States ($500 million) remain the same or be increased or decreased?
11. Should the limit on aggregate public liability be eliminated? If so, how should the resulting unlimited liability be funded? Does the rationale for the limit on aggregate public liability differ depending on whether the nuclear incident results from a DOE activity or from an activity of an NRC licensee?
12. Should the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification continue to cover DOE contractors and other persons when a nuclear incident results from their gross negligence or willful misconduct? If not, what would be the effects, if any, on: (1) The operation of the Price-Anderson system with respect to the nuclear incident, (2) other persons indemnified, (3) potential claimants, and (4) the cost of the nuclear incident to DOE? To what extent is it possible to minimize any detrimental effects on persons other than the person whose gross negligence or willful misconduct resulted in a nuclear incident? For example, what would be the effect if the United States government were given the right to seek reimbursement for the amount of the indemnification paid from a DOE contractor or other person whose gross negligence or willful misconduct causes a nuclear incident?
13. Should the definition of nuclear incident be expanded to include occurrences that result from DOE activity outside the United States where such activity does not involve nuclear material owned by, and used by or under contract with, the United States? For example, should the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification be available for activities of DOE contractors that are undertaken outside the United States for purposes such as non-proliferation, nuclear risk reduction or improvement of nuclear safety? If so, should the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification for these additional activities be mandatory or discretionary?
14. Should the PAA be modified to extend its authorization beyond 2025, or to make permanent the authorization? If so, what would be the effect, if any, on the DOE Price-Anderson indemnification? What would be the effect, if any, on the United States' adherence to the CSC?
15. Should the PAA be modified as necessary to enable the United States to become a party to other international nuclear liability law treaties in addition to the CSC (that is, replace state tort law with the international nuclear liability principles, including channeling all legal liability exclusively to the operator on the basis of strict liability)? If so, what would be the effect, if any, on the system of financial protection, indemnification and compensation established by the PAA?
16. Should the PAA be modified to harmonize the operation of the PAA and
17. Should section 934 of EISA be modified, especially with respect to the mechanisms for funding the United States' contribution to the CSC international fund? If so, describe the modification and explain the rationale.
18. Should the procedures in the PAA for administrative and judicial proceedings be modified? If so, describe the modification and explain the rationale.
19. Should there be any modification in the types of claims covered by the PAA system?
20. What modifications in the PAA or its implementation, if any, could facilitate the prompt payment and settlement of claims?
21. Should the PAA be modified to address any unique circumstances or issues raised by the development and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors, including small modular reactors and microreactors? If so, describe the modification and explain the rationale.
22. Should the PAA be modified to address any unique circumstances or issues raised by research and development activities related to advanced nuclear reactors, including small modular reactors and microreactors at DOE sites or by DOE contractors? If so, describe the modification and explain the rationale.
23. Should the PAA be modified to address any issues raised by current or anticipated changes in the nuclear industry such as increased use of reactors with capacity of less than 100 megawatts, decreased use of reactors with capacity of greater than 100 megawatts, and deployment of fusion reactors? If so, describe the modification and explain the rationale.
24. Should the PAA be modified to address any environmental justice or equity and inclusion issues that may be associated with the implementation of the PAA, or the administration of claims covered by the PAA? If so, describe the modification and explain the rationale.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 20, 2021, by John T. Lucas, Acting General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, 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
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).
Request for Information (RFI).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on its Request for Information (RFI) number 21EE000682 regarding supporting Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) in the public sector. DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office (WIP), seeks information from the public and nonprofit organizations that have the expertise to support energy savings performance contracting (ESPC) in the municipalities, universities, schools, and hospitals (MUSH) market. The desired outcome of this request is to enhance how MUSH market stakeholders can use ESPC to maximize energy and cost savings, local economies, and workforce development.
Responses to the RFI must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on August 25, 2021.
Interested parties are to submit comments electronically to
Questions may be addressed to Alice Dasek at
The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from the public and nonprofits that have deep expertise in ESPC in the MUSH market, with solutions for the technical, contractual, and financial barriers to achieving verified savings from ESPC. EERE is specifically interested in such organizations' capacity, ability, experience, and best practices for working with state energy offices and other state and local government ESPC practitioners to design and implement ESPC in their respective states; documenting MUSH-market ESPC state program needs and current projects; facilitating MUSH market peer exchange opportunities; and providing technical assistance to build state ESPC frameworks. Respondents may describe documented expertise in the field across the country, experience leading or executing ESPC projects in the MUSH market (including all relevant technical, financial, and contractual expertise), and established network connections with ESPC practitioners in the MUSH market. This is solely a request for information and not a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). EERE is not accepting applications.
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).
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Generation Bridge M&M Holdings, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 9, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Tulare Solar Center, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 9, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of CPRE 1 Lessee, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 9, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of SR Lumpkin, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 9, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of SR Snipesville II, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 9, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Generation Bridge Connecticut Holdings, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 9, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed an application submitted by Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (licensee) to allow the Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission (JMWSC), the use of Saluda Hydroelectric (FERC No. 516) project lands and waters to construct and operate a component of a raw water withdrawal facility. Once constructed, JMWSC would initially withdraw 10 million gallons of water per day (mgd) from Lake Murray and increase its withdrawals over time, up to 50 mgd, as water supply needs dictate. The Saluda project is located on the Saluda River in Richland, Lexington, Saluda, and Newberry counties, South Carolina. Once constructed, the raw water withdrawal facility itself will be located in Lexington County. The project does not occupy federal lands.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared as part of Commission staff's review of the proposal. This EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed action and concludes that approval of the proposal, with appropriate environmental measures, would not
The EA may be viewed on the Commission's website at
For further information, contact Joy Kurtz at (202) 502-6760 or by email at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. KEI Power filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on June 1, 2021. KEI Power provided public notice of its request on May 26, 2021. In a letter dated July 20, 2021, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved KEI Power's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402. We are also initiating consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Northbrook as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Northbrook filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 2548. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10, each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by May 31, 2024.
p. Register online at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Glacier Sands Wind Power, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 9, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Lancaster Solar LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 9, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of SR Georgia Portfolio II Lessee, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 9, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of In Commodities US LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 9, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Prairie Wolf Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 9, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Landfill Methane Outreach Program” (EPA ICR No. 1849.10, OMB Control No. 2060-0446) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2022. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 24, 2021.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0078, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Lauren Aepli, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, (6207A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9423; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final action.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an Order, dated May 10, 2021, denying a petition to object to Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permits issued to two facilities by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The EPA's May 10, 2021 Order responds to a November 24, 2020 petition submitted by the Sierra Club and the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (the “Petitioners”). The Petitioners requested that the EPA object to the issuance of two title V renewal operating permits issued to Colton Power, LP's Drews Power Generating Station and Century Power Generating Station, located in San Bernardino County, California. The Order constitutes final action on the petition requesting the Administrator object to the issuance of the proposed CAA title V permits.
Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), judicial review of this final agency action, to the extent it is available, may be sought by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 60 days of July 26, 2021.
Copies of the petition and Order are available at
Lisa Beckham, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street (AIR-3-1), San Francisco, California 94105. By phone at (415) 972-3811, or by email at
The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating permits proposed by state and local permitting authorities under title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after the comment period.
On November 24, 2020, the EPA received a petition requesting that the EPA object to the CAA title V renewal permits for Colton Power, LP's Drews Power Generating Station (Facility ID No. 182561) and Century Power Generating Station (Facility ID No. 182563) (“Permits”). The Petitioners claim that the Permits must be revised to include the more stringent oxides of nitrogen (NO
The EPA denied the petition because the Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the recently amended version of SCAQMD Rule 1134 is an applicable requirement as defined in 40 CFR 70.2 The Order provides additional information, including the EPA's detailed basis for denying the petition.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before August 25, 2021.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Virtual meeting.
This meeting will be open to the public. To access the virtual meeting, go to the commission's website
Judith Ingram, Press Officer. Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than August 10, 2021.
1.
2.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than August 25, 2021.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 21, 2021.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled CryptoNet Case Report Form to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on March 8, 2021 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
CryptoNet Case Report Form—New—National Center for Emerging and
The CryptoNet case report form (CRF) was developed to meet the needs of CDC's case surveillance experts and local officials. The CRF includes a set of data elements that can be used to identify exposure trends in outbreak- and non-outbreak-associated
Administration of the CRF is to conduct surveillance on exposures associated with
The CRF data elements and form were designed for administration via telephone interview with cases of cryptosporidiosis or their proxies. This method was chosen to reduce the overall burden on respondents because it allows for the assessment team to ask for clarification from participants during the interview, and this limits the need for additional follow-up. The data collection instrument was designed to collect the minimum information necessary for the purposes of this project.
Based on the annual number of laboratory specimens collected by the
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Development of CDC's Let's Stop HIV Together Social Marketing Campaign for Consumers” to the Office of Management and budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on March 12, 2021 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Development of CDC's Let's Stop HIV Together Social Marketing Campaign for Consumers—Reinstatement—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
To address the HIV epidemic in the U.S., the Department of Health and Human Services launched Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America, which is a cross-agency initiative aiming to reduce new HIV infections in the U.S. by 90% by 2030. CDC's Let's Stop HIV Together campaign (formerly known as Act Against AIDS) is part of the national Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative and includes resources aimed at reducing HIV stigma and promoting testing, prevention, and treatment across the HIV care continuum.
Within this context, CDC's Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) has and will continue implementing various communication initiatives to increase HIV awareness among the general public, reduce new HIV infections among disproportionately impacted populations, and improve health outcomes for people living with HIV/AIDS in the US and its territories. Specifically, the campaigns target consumers aged 18 to 64 years old and includes the following audiences: (1) General public; (2) Men who have sex with men; (3) Blacks/African Americans; (4) Hispanics/Latinos; (5) Transgender individuals; (6) people who inject drugs; and (7) people with HIV (PWH).
The rounds of data collection include exploratory, message testing, concept testing, and materials testing. Information collected by DHAP will be used to assess consumers' informational needs about HIV testing, prevention, and treatment and pre-test campaign related messages, concepts, and materials and evaluate the extent to which the communication initiatives are reaching the target audiences and providing them with trusted HIV-related information. Data collections will include in-depth interviews, focus groups, brief surveys, and intercept interviews.
The data gathered under this request will be summarized in reports prepared for CDC by its contractor, such as quarterly and annual reports and topline reports that summarize results from each data collection. It is possible that data from this project will be published in peer-reviewed manuscripts or presented at conferences; the manuscripts and conference presentations may appear on the internet.
The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1,856. Participation by respondents is voluntary, and there is no cost to participants other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Focus Group Testing to Effectively Plan and Tailor Cancer Prevention and Control Communication Campaigns. CDC is requesting a Revision to this Generic Clearance to include an additional cancer-related communications campaign, expand the modes of data collection to include online focus groups and in-depth interviews (in-person, phone, and online), and to focus on respondents from the general public.
CDC must receive written comments on or before September 24, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2021-0072 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Focus Group Testing to Effectively Plan and Tailor Cancer Prevention and Control Communications Campaigns—(OMB Control No. 0920-0800, Exp. 10/31/2021)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The mission of the CDC's Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (DCPC) is to reduce the burden of cancer in the United States through cancer prevention, reduction of risk, early detection, and improved quality of life for cancer survivors. Toward this end, the DCPC supports the scientific development and implementation of various health communication campaigns with an emphasis on specific cancer burdens.
This process requires testing of messages, concepts, and materials prior to their final development and dissemination, as described in the second step of the health communication process. The health communication process is a scientific model developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Cancer Institute to guide sound campaign development. The communication literature supports various data collection methods to conduct credible formative, concept, message, and materials testing. This process ensures that the public clearly understands cancer-specific information and concepts, are motivated to take the desired action, and do not react negatively to the messages. CDC is currently approved to collect information needed to plan and tailor cancer communication campaigns (OMB Control No. 0920-0800, Exp. 10/31/2021), and seeks OMB approval to revise the existing generic clearance to include another cancer-related communications campaign, expand the modes of data collection to include online focus groups and in-depth interviews (in-person, phone, and online), and to focus on respondents from the general public.
Information collection will involve discussions to assess numerous qualitative dimensions of cancer prevention and control messages including, but not limited to, cancer knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, behavioral intentions, information needs and sources, and compliance with cancer screening as recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. Insights gained from these discussions will assist in the development and/or refinement of future campaign messages and materials. Communication campaigns and messages will vary according to the type of cancer and the qualitative dimensions of the message described above. A separate information collection
OMB approval is requested for three years. There is no change in burden hours or respondents. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents except their time. CDC requests approval for an estimated 1,680 annual burden hours.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee (MSHRAC); June 21, 2021, 10:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m., EDT, in the original FRN.
The meeting was published in the
This meeting is being canceled in its entirety.
George W. Luxbacher, Designated Federal Officer, MSHRAC, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2400 Century Parkway NE, Atlanta, GA 30345; Telephone: (404) 498-2808; email:
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Program Reporting System” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on March 12, 2021 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Program Reporting System (OMB Control No. 0920-0556, Exp. 8/31/2021)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 2(a) of Public Law 102-493 (known as the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (FCSRCA), 42 U.S.C. 263a-1(a)) requires that each assisted reproductive technology (ART) program shall annually report to the Secretary through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: (1) Pregnancy success rates achieved by such ART program, and (2) the identity of each embryo laboratory used by such ART program, and whether the laboratory is certified or has applied for such certification under the Act. The required information is currently reported by ART programs to CDC as specified in the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Program Reporting System (OMB Control No. 0920-0556, Exp. 8/31/2021). CDC seeks to continue OMB approval for a period of three years. The revised total burden estimate is higher than the previous approval, due to an increase in the utilization of ART in the United States.
The estimated number of respondents (ART programs or clinics) is 456, based on the number of clinics that provided information in 2018; the estimated average number of responses (ART cycles) per respondent is 670. Additionally, approximately 5-10% of responding clinics will be randomly selected each year to participate in data validation and quality control activities; an estimated 35 clinics will be selected to report validation data on 70 cycles each on average. Finally, respondents may provide feedback to CDC about the usability and utility of the reporting system. The option to participate in the feedback survey is presented to respondents when they complete their required data submission. Participation in the feedback survey is voluntary and is not required by the FCSRCA. CDC estimates that 50% of ART programs will participate in the feedback survey.
The collection of ART cycle information allows CDC to publish an annual report to Congress as specified by the FCSRCA and to provide information needed by consumers. OMB approval is requested for three years and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden is 219,904 hours.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “US Tuberculosis Follow-Up Worksheet for Newly-Arrived Persons with Overseas Tuberculosis Classifications,” also commonly known as a “TB Follow-Up Worksheet” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on 03/09/2021 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The US Tuberculosis Follow-Up Worksheet for Newly-Arrived Persons with Overseas Tuberculosis Classifications (OMB Control No. 0920-1238, Exp. 06/30/2021)—Reinstatement with Change—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ) collaborated with the Division of TB Elimination (DTBE) to revise the proposed worksheet to capture follow-up medical examination information after a person with tuberculosis classification has arrived in
The US foreign-born population continuously had the highest incidence of tuberculosis compared to the US non-foreign-born population. According to CDC, the 2019 TB case rate was 14.2 per 100,000 for foreign-born persons compared to 0.9 per 100,000 for US-born persons. The proportion of TB cases occurring in the foreign-born population was found to be approximately 70.9% of the national case total. CDC strongly recommends US-bound immigrants and refugees with class A or B tuberculosis to receive follow-up examinations for tuberculosis in the US.
The purpose of this data collection is to methodically gather tuberculosis follow-up outcome data to monitor and track US-bound persons with overseas class A and B tuberculosis to assist in the national effort to prevent new transmission of tuberculosis. To accurately determine recent US arrivals receiving domestic follow-up medical examinations, US health departments will provide domestic follow-up outcome information to CDC by completing The EDN Tuberculosis Follow-Up Worksheet for Newly-Arrived Persons with Overseas Tuberculosis Classifications, also commonly known as the TB Follow-Up Worksheet. Without this data, DGMQ will not have a method of tracking and monitoring newly-arrived persons with overseas class A or B tuberculosis. DGMQ will use information reported on the TB Follow-Up Worksheet to ensure that tuberculosis programs are effectively tracking newly-arrived persons and coordinating follow-up medical examinations with state and local clinicians in the US.
Since the previous approval of the “US Tuberculosis Follow-Up Worksheet for Newly-Arrived Persons with Overseas Tuberculosis Classifications” data collection instrument in 2018, there have been changes made in the data collection instrument to clarify wording, add additional options for respondents to select, and enhance data collection quality. There are also clarifications made in the “Purpose and Use of Information Collection” in Supporting Statement A to further clarify information what the data collection instrument collects. In the “Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods” section of Supporting Statement B, there are clarifications made to explain how respondents gain access to and use the Electronic Disease Notification (EDN) system and the data collection instrument. There is an increase from 550 respondents to 1548 respondents due to the increase in the number of individuals throughout the United States requesting access to the EDN system to access medical records for U.S. arrivals, and complete the EDN Tuberculosis Follow-Up Worksheet for Newly-Arrived Persons with Overseas Tuberculosis Classifications for U.S. arrivals with TB classifications. There is no change to the burden per respondent to complete a follow-up form.
Several indicators will be calculated to measure domestic tuberculosis program performance, including the percentage of aliens with class B tuberculosis with complete US medical examinations. This program performance monitoring activity will be ongoing throughout the year. State and local health departments will voluntarily report evaluation outcome findings on a continuous basis once evaluation results for an individual becomes available.
Data collected by DGMQ will be used to help evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of overseas tuberculosis diagnoses, treatments, and prevention activities along with panel physician performance. Currently, DGMQ does not have an effective method of determining the accuracy of chest x-rays read overseas and the aptness of overseas treatment for tuberculosis. This data will provide DGMQ with a method of evaluating panel physician performance and overseas treatment and prevention activities. The proposed TB Follow-Up Worksheet contains sections that allow US physicians to review overseas chest x-rays and treatment and indicate any concerns or errors. A negative consequence of not collecting this information is that DGMQ will not be able to efficiently analyze data to determine which panel physicians have the most inaccuracies. Plans for formal evaluations of US panel physicians are contingent upon the approval of the TB Follow-Up Worksheet.
If technical instructions for tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment are followed properly overseas, persons with overseas classification B tuberculosis should not have tuberculosis disease during their US follow-up examinations. The form will help DGMQ understand what factors may contribute to a domestic diagnosis of tuberculosis. The TB Follow-up Worksheet contains a section that collects patient diagnoses and treatment recommendations. Without this information, DGMQ staff will not be able to accurately identify and resolve factors that contribute to tuberculosis disease. This form of monitoring is ongoing and will occur with every instance an alien is diagnosed with tuberculosis disease during follow-up examinations.
There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden are 2,322 hours.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
The CDC, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff, announces the following meeting of the ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee meeting. This meeting is open to the public, limited only by audio. Online Registration is not required.
The meeting will be held on September 14, 2021, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., EDT, and September 15, 2021, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., EDT.
This is a virtual meeting. Information will be provided on each of our respective web pages when it becomes available. For CDC/NCHS
Traci Ramirez, Medical Systems Specialist, CDC, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782; Telephone: (301) 458-4454; Email:
Please refer to the posted agenda for updates one month prior to the meeting.
(1) Applicant intends to submit a New Technology Add-on Payment (NTAP) application for FY 2023.
(2) Request is for an April 1, 2022 implementation date.
Presentations for procedure code requests are conducted by both the requestor and CMS during the Coordination & Maintenance Committee meeting. Discussion from the requestor generally focuses on the clinical issues for the procedure or technology, followed by the proposed coding options from a CMS analyst. Topics presented may also include requests for new procedure codes that relate to a new technology add-on payment (NTAP) policy request.
CMS is continuing to modify the approach for presenting the new technology add-on payment (NTAP) related ICD-10-PCS procedure code requests that involve the administration of a therapeutic agent. Consistent with the requirements of section 1886(d)(5)(K)(iii) of the Social Security Act, applicants submitted requests to create a unique procedure code to describe the administration of a therapeutic agent, such as the option to create a new code in Section X within the ICD-10-PCS procedure code classification. CMS will initially only display those meeting materials associated with the NTAP related ICD-10-PCS procedure code requests that involve the administration of a therapeutic agent on the CMS website in early August 2021 at:
The three NTAP related ICD-10-PCS procedure code requests that involve the administration of a therapeutic agent are:
These topics will not be presented during the September 14-15, 2021 meeting. CMS will solicit public comments regarding any clinical questions or coding options included for these three procedure code topics in advance of the meeting continuing through the end of the public comment period. The deadline to submit comments for topics being considered for April 1, 2022 implementation is October 15, 2021 and the deadline to submit comments for topics being considered for an October 1, 2022 implementation is November 15, 2021. Members of the public should send any questions or comments to the CMS mailbox at:
CMS intends to post a question and answer document in advance of the meeting to address any clinical or coding questions that members of the public may have submitted. Following the conclusion of the meeting, CMS will post an updated question and answer document to address any additional clinical or coding questions that members of the public may have submitted during the meeting that CMS was not able to address or that were submitted after the meeting.
The NTAP related ICD-10-PCS procedure code requests that do not involve the administration of a therapeutic agent and all non-NTAP related procedure code requests will continue to be presented during the virtual meeting on September 14, 2021
CMS will make all meeting materials and related documents available at:
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) Monitoring Activities. Proposed study is designed to collect information about implementation, including delivery of screening and follow-up clinical services, and outcomes of the NBCCEDP.
CDC must receive written comments on or before September 24, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2021-0074 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) Monitoring Activities—(OMB Control No. 0920-1046, Exp. 11/30/2021)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC is requesting a Revision of the information collection with the OMB Control Number 0920-1046, titled “National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) Monitoring Activities.” In the previous OMB approval period, information collection consisted of an annual NBCCEDP survey and clinic-level data collection. In the next OMB approval period, information collection will consist of a revised NBCCEDP survey, revised clinic-level data collection, new quarterly program update, new service delivery projection worksheet, and the addition of previously approved minimum data elements (MDEs; OMB Control No. 0920-0571, Exp. 11/30/2021) to increase efficiency. The number of respondents will remain the same and the total estimated annualized burden will increase from 683 to 1,216.
Breast and cervical cancers are prevalent among U.S. women. In 2017, the U.S. experienced 250,520 new cases and 42,000 deaths as a result of breast
To improve access to cancer screening, Congress passed the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 106-354), which directed CDC to create the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). The NBCCEDP currently provides funding to 70 awardees under “Cancer Prevention and Control Programs for State, Territorial, and Tribal Organizations (DP17-1701).” NBCCEDP awardees include states or their bona fide agents; U.S. territories; and tribes or tribal organizations. The purpose of NBCCEDP is to increase breast and cervical cancer screening rates among women residing within defined geographical locations (as determined by the funded program) who are at or below 250% of the federal poverty level; aged 40-64 years for breast cancer services, and aged 21-64 years for cervical cancer services; and under- or uninsured.
In 2022, CDC will issue a new Notice of Funding Opportunity (DP22-2202) to continue this mission. Consistent with programmatic changes, the information collection plan has also been redesigned to update existing, and add new data collection instruments, and to integrate the previously approved MDEs into this single approval package to increase efficiency of information collection for the NBCCEDP. This revised information collection will allow CDC to provide routine monitoring feedback to awardees based on their data submissions, tailor technical assistance (TA) as needed, support program planning, and assess program outcomes.
CDC proposes five forms of information collection. First, the NBCCEDP survey will be submitted to CDC annually and collects information to monitor awardees' TA needs, external funding sources, partnerships, EBI implementation, and COVID-19 impact. Minor revisions to survey questions and formatting reflect the program under DP22-2202. Second, clinic-level data will be submitted to CDC at baseline and annually for all partnering health system clinic sites—an estimated six clinics per awardee for breast cancer data and six clinics per awardee for cervical cancer data. Clinic-level data allow CDC to assess health system, clinic, and patient population characteristics; monitoring and quality improvement activities; EBI implementation; and baseline or annual screening rates. Minor revisions were made to variable wording, formatting (
The proposed information collections will allow CDC to gauge progress in meeting NBCCEDP program goals and monitor implementation activities, evaluate outcomes, and identify awardee TA needs. In addition, findings will inform program improvement and help identify successful activities that need to be maintained, replicated, or expanded.
OMB approval is requested for three years. CDC requests approval for an estimated 1,216 annual burden hours. Participation is required for NBCCEDP awardees. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Application for Training, which supports the management and evaluation of online training and professional development opportunities for public health and health care professionals.
CDC must receive written comments on or before September 24, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2021-0073 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Application for Training (OMB Control No. 0920-0017, Exp. 04/30/2022)—Revision—Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (CSELS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This Information Collection Request (ICR) is for the Revision of a currently approved ICR (OMB Control No. 0920-0017, Expiration 4/30/2022. Approval is requested for three years. The mission of CDC's Division of Scientific Education and Professional Development (DSEPD) is to support the development of a competent, sustainable, and empowered public health workforce. Professionals in public health, epidemiology, medicine, economics, information science, veterinary medicine, nursing, public policy, and other related professions seek professional development opportunities (both accredited and nonaccredited) through two CDC learning management systems. These two learning management systems are Training and Continuing Education Online (TCEO) (for accredited courses) and CDC TRAIN (for nonaccredited courses developed by CDC programs, grantees, and other funded partners). Access to quality and accredited learning programs and products through these two systems allow for the public health workforce to broaden their knowledge and skills to improve the science and practice of public health for domestic and international impact.
The overarching purpose of the ICR is to continually improve CDC training activities, and maintain CDC compliance with mandatory accreditation organization standards by efficiently collecting information through CDC's Training and Continuing Education Online (TCEO) and CDC TRAIN systems, while navigating a future merger that moves to using a single system (CDC TRAIN).
This Revision requests to extend current approval of the TCEO forms, with one minor change, namely to add two new response options for one question on the TCEO New Participant Registration. This Revision also requests to add CDC TRAIN as a data collection system and add two CDC TRAIN standard training evaluation tools (one for use immediately after the course is taken, and one 3-6 months after the course is taken) that will be employed on the learning management system. This proposed change will provide CDC with an efficient, effective, and secure electronic mechanism for collecting, processing, and monitoring training-related information.
CDC will use information collected in both systems to evaluate and improve courses based on learner feedback. At this time, TCEO is also used to generate certificates of attendance and verify training completion, review and approve proposals for educational activities to receive continuing education accreditation, and ensure compliance with mandatory accreditation standards.
All data will be collected online, using secure electronic web-based
CDC requests approval for an estimated 412,600 annual burden hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting and request for comment.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This meeting is open to the public. Time will be available for public comment. The meeting will be webcast live via the World Wide Web. For more information on ACIP please visit the ACIP website:
The meeting will be held on September 29, 2021, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:05 p.m., EDT, and September 30, 2021, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:10 p.m., EDT (times subject to change), see the ACIP website for updates:
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2021-0075 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Stephanie Thomas, ACIP Committee Management Specialist, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-H24-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027; Telephone: (404) 639-8367; Email:
Interested persons or organizations are invited to participate by submitting written views, recommendations, and data. Please note that comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are subject to public disclosure. Comments will be posted on
If the number of persons requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled time, CDC will conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled public comment session. CDC staff will notify individuals regarding their request to speak by email September 28, 2021. To accommodate the significant interest in participation in the oral public comment session of ACIP meetings, each speaker will be limited to 3 minutes, and each speaker may only speak once per meeting.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee (CTGTAC). The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. Matters considered at the meeting will include discussion of the toxicity risks of adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector-based gene therapy products. The discussion topics include oncogenicity risks due to vector genome integration and safety issues identified during preclinical and/or clinical evaluation. The meeting will be open to the public on both days. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on September 2 and 3, 2021, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Time.
Please note that due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, all meeting participants will be joining this advisory committee meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2021-N-0651. The docket will close on September 1, 2021. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting on or before September 1, 2021. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Comments received on or before August 26, 2021, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Jarrod Collier or Joanne Lipkind, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6268, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference meeting room will be available at
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jarrod Collier at
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Final order, determination.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or “the Department”) issued a Notice in the
For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and-written/paper comments received, go to
Angela Krueger, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1660, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6380, or by email at
Under section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c), FDA must classify devices into one of three regulatory classes: Class I, class II, or class III. FDA classification of a device is determined by the amount of regulation necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (“1976 amendments”) (Pub. L. 94-295), and the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), require FDA to classify devices into class I (“general controls”) if there is information showing that the general controls of the FD&C Act are sufficient to assure safety and effectiveness; into class II (“special controls”), if general controls, by themselves, are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such assurance; and into class III (premarket approval), if there is insufficient information to support classifying a device into class I or class II and the device is a life sustaining or life supporting device, or is for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, or presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury.
Unless a device is exempt from premarket notification, section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and the implementing regulations, part 807 of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), require persons who intend to market a new device to submit a premarket notification (510(k)) demonstrating the new device is “substantially equivalent” within the meaning of section 513(i) of the FD&C Act to a legally marketed device for which premarket approval is not required. Section 510(
As discussed in the April 16 notice, since 2017, FDA has evaluated which devices meet the reserved criteria several times. See 86 FR 20167 at 20168. Each time, FDA has made its determinations available to the public through publication in the
On December 13, 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) amended section 510(
Section 510(
As discussed in the April 16 notice, the January 15 notice (86 FR 4088) neither discussed the reserved criteria nor explained how HHS came to determine that the gloves no longer meet the reserved criteria;
In the April 16 notice, HHS and FDA announced our view that surgeon's gloves and patient examination gloves meet the reserved criteria, and sought comment on this determination. HHS and FDA received eight comments on that notice, all of which were supportive of the determination that surgeon's gloves and patient examination gloves meet the reserved criteria and are properly subject to premarket notification.
As discussed in the April 16 notice, because of their importance in preventing impairment of human health, FDA has long considered surgeon's and patient examination gloves to meet the reserved criteria under section 510(
HHS and FDA continue to believe that these gloves are of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health or present a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury and thus are subject to the reporting requirement under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act. Based on the risks inherent to surgeon's gloves and patient examination gloves and the diseases being prevented, FDA's experience with these devices, and other relevant considerations, HHS and FDA have determined that gloves with the product codes LYY, LYZ, OIG, OPC, OPH, LZC, and OPA are intended for uses which are of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health or present a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury, and thus a report is required under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act. Surgeon's gloves and patient examination gloves are generally intended to prevent contamination and the spread of pathogens, and can be the key barrier protecting against spreading infection (Refs. 1-3). See 21 CFR 878.4460 and 880.6250. As set forth in the April 16 notice, surgeon's gloves prevent against contamination in the operating room (Refs. 4 and 5), medical gloves protect against occupational exposure, for example, to chemotherapy drugs (Refs. 6 and 7), and these gloves play an important role in protecting the public. Review under section 510(k) is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness, including by helping to assure that the identified gloves are durable and impermeable, among other things.
Based on this evaluation and considering the comments submitted, HHS and FDA have made a final determination that surgeon's gloves and patient examination gloves meet the reserved criteria and therefore are subject to premarket notification.
The gloves discussed in this notice are reserved, and as such, a 510(k) is required for them. In general, FDA evaluates the dimensional and physical properties of the gloves, and nonclinical data regarding barrier performance, biocompatibility, and residual powders, among other information, to support the safety and effectiveness of the gloves for their intended use. FDA also evaluates the indications for use and labeling to ensure the devices are appropriately labeled, consistent with their intended use. For any gloves that are distributed—including any gloves that are presented for import—after the compliance date of this order without premarket review, the Agency will consider and take appropriate enforcement action, taking into account the enforcement policy in its Guidance for Industry, “Enforcement Policy for
The following references marked with an asterisk (*) are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) debarring Jonathan Doyle for a period of 5 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for importation into the United States. FDA bases this order on a finding that Mr. Doyle was convicted of a felony count under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of an article of food. Mr. Doyle was given notice of the proposed debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. As of April 8, 2021 (30 days after receipt of the notice), Mr. Doyle has not responded. Mr. Doyle's failure to respond and request a hearing constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this matter.
This order is applicable July 26, 2021.
Submit applications for termination of debarment to the Dockets Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500, or at
Jaime Espinosa, Division of Enforcement (ELEM-4029), Office of Strategic Planning and Operational Policy, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857, 240-402-8743, or at
Section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(C)) permits FDA to debar an individual from importing an article of food or offering such an article for import into the United States if FDA finds, as required by section 306(b)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act, that the individual has been convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any food.
On October 15, 2020, Mr. Doyle was convicted as defined in section 306(
FDA's finding that the debarment is appropriate is based on the felony conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for this conviction is as follows: As contained in the factual résumé, dated February 15, 2019, in Mr. Doyle's case, he was the President of USPlabs, LLC (USP Labs), and owned 45 percent of the company. USP Labs sold dietary supplements. Beginning in or around October 2008 and continuing until at least in or around August 2014, Mr. Doyle engaged in a conspiracy with others to import and ship in interstate commerce a variety of chemicals for use and prospective use in dietary supplements with false labeling. To further this conspiracy, Mr. Doyle's coconspirators ordered chemicals from Chinese chemical sellers to be used as ingredients in dietary supplements and had them labeled falsely as other food substances. USP Labs sold dietary supplements called Jack3d and OxyElite Pro, both of which originally contained a substance called 1,3-dimethylamylamine (DMAA), which is also known as methylhexaneamine. USP Labs imported numerous substances intended for human consumption, including DMAA, using false and fraudulent Certificates of Analysis (COA) and other false and fraudulent documentation and labeling. At least some of the false COAs that USP Labs
As a result of this conviction FDA sent Mr. Doyle, by certified mail on March 4, 2021, a notice proposing to debar him for a period of 5 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into the United States. The proposal was based on a finding under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act that Mr. Doyle's felony conviction of conspiracy to introduce misbranded food into interstate commerce with an intent to defraud and mislead in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 21 U.S.C. 333(a)(2)), constitutes conduct relating to the importation into the United States of an article of food because the offense involved a conspiracy to import a variety of chemicals with false labeling in order to either use those chemicals in dietary supplements which would themselves also contain false labeling or to determine whether those chemicals could be used in new dietary supplements.
The proposal was also based on a determination, after consideration of the relevant factors set forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act, that Mr. Doyle should be subject to a 5-year period of debarment. The proposal also offered Mr. Doyle an opportunity to request a hearing, providing Mr. Doyle 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised Mr. Doyle that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. Mr. Doyle failed to respond within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived his opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions concerning his debarment (21 CFR part 12).
Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal Food Operations, under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Mr. Jonathan Doyle has been convicted of a felony count under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of an article of food and that he is subject to a 5-year period of debarment.
As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Doyle is debarred for a period of 5 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into the United States, effective July 26, 2021. Pursuant to section 301(cc) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(cc)), the importing or offering for import into the United States of an article of food by, with the assistance of, or at the direction of Jonathan Doyle is a prohibited act.
Any application by Mr. Doyle for termination of debarment under section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2020-N-2149 and sent to the Dockets Management Staff (
Publicly available submissions will be placed in the docket and will be viewable at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than September 24, 2021.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
Information collected will allow for (1) assessing whether recipients have met statutory and programmatic requirements, (2) conducting audits, (3) gathering data required to report on findings with respect to the disbursements of PRF payments, and (4) program evaluation. HRSA staff will also use information collected to identify and report on trends in health care metrics and expenditures before and during the allowable period for expending PRF payments.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group (TBDWG) will hold a virtual meeting. The meeting will be open to the public. For this meeting, TBDWG members will focus on plans to develop the next report due December 2022 on federal tick-borne activities and research, taking into consideration the 2018 and 2020 reports. The 2022 report will address a wide range of topics related to tick-borne diseases, such as, surveillance, prevention, diagnosis, diagnostics, and treatment; identify advances made in research, as well as overlap and gaps in tick-borne disease research; and provide recommendations regarding any appropriate changes or
The meeting will be held online via webcast on August 26, 2021 from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET (times are tentative and subject to change). The confirmed times and agenda items for the meeting will be posted on the TBDWG web page at
James Berger, Designated Federal Officer for the TBDWG; Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Mary E. Switzer Building, 330 C Street SW, Suite L600, Washington, DC 20024. Email:
Registration information can be found on the meeting website at
In notice document 2021-15168, appearing on pages 37757-37758 in the issue of Friday, July 16, 2021, make the following correction:
On page 37757, in the third column, on the thirty-sixth line from the top, “minority
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women's Health.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and open to the public. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meetings. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of November 5, 2021 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before October 25, 2021.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2146, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice; withdrawal.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports for Bay County, Florida and Incorporated Areas.
This withdrawal is July 26, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2063, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
On November 18, 2020, FEMA published a proposed notice at 85 FR 73502, proposing flood hazard determinations for Bay County, Florida and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed notice.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before October 25, 2021.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2151, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice; withdrawal.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports for Franklin County, Florida and Incorporated Areas.
This withdrawal is effective July 26, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2062, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
On October 29, 2020, FEMA published a proposed notice at 85 FR 68586, proposing flood hazard determinations for Franklin County, Florida and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed notice.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before October 25, 2021.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2152, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Notice.
TSA is providing notice of temporary exemptions the agency is granting to three airport operators to permit them to enter into Exclusive Area Agreements (EAA) with Amazon Air, a subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc. The exemption applies to the following airport operators: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG), Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI), and Chicago Rockford International Airport (RFD).
These exemptions take effect on July 26, 2021 and remain in effect until modified or rescinded by TSA through a notice published in the
Eric Byczynski, Airport Security Programs, Aviation Division, Policy, Plans, and Engagement; email to:
TSA's regulations provide that airport operators may enter into EAAs only with aircraft operators or foreign air carriers, subject to TSA approval of an amendment to each airport operator's airport security program (ASP).
TSA has determined it is in the public interest to authorize these airport operators to enter into EAAs with Amazon Air because this action will create operational and economic efficiencies for the airport operators and Amazon Air, to the economic benefit of the public and without detriment to security. The exemptions permit these airports to leverage significant private sector technologies with respect to access control and monitoring systems that enhance security and minimize insider threat. The exemptions will also facilitate the rapid hiring of significant numbers of new personnel to support Amazon Air's expanded presence at these locations, aiding the economy in the surrounding areas. Finally, the exemptions will permit TSA to exercise direct regulatory oversight of Amazon Air concerning the security functions they will perform under the EAAs. All other provisions of 49 CFR 1542.111 will apply to any EAA executed under these exemptions.
TSA administers a comprehensive regulatory program to govern the security of aviation, including standards for domestic airports, domestic aircraft operators, and foreign air carriers. The security requirements for domestic airports are codified at 49 CFR part 1542 and include minimum standards for access control procedures, identification (ID) media, passenger screening, criminal history records checks (CHRCs) of airport workers, law enforcement support, training, contingency plans, TSA inspection authority, and incident management. These regulations require airport operators to conduct specified security measures in the secured area,
TSA recognizes that, in certain circumstances, these security measures may be performed more effectively or efficiently by another TSA-regulated party, such as an aircraft operator or foreign air carrier, operating on the airport. Therefore, under 49 CFR 1542.111, TSA may approve an amendment to an airport's ASP that permits the airport operator to execute a legally binding EAA with an aircraft operator
EAAs are an established part of TSA's regulatory structure for airport operators, commonly used since 1978.
These exemptions are limited to three airports-CVG, BWI, and RFD-and the operations of Amazon Air at these locations.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company based in Seattle, Washington engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, artificial intelligence, and cargo shipping. As of Spring 2021, Amazon reports that, less than 20 percent of Amazon's cargo is shipped by air. Due in part, however, to the COVID-19 public health crisis and impact on the economy, cargo shipment has increased dramatically, with a corresponding relative increase in the total volume of air cargo.
Amazon's subsidiary, Amazon Air, maintains operations at various domestic and international airports. Amazon Air owns air cargo aircraft, but does not operate the aircraft itself and is not an aircraft operator for purposes of TSA's regulations. Amazon Air leases the aircraft to certain aircraft operators holding TSA full all-cargo security programs.
As an authorized representative
Based on logistics and Amazon Air's current transportation network, these airports have become high capacity locations. As noted above, these increases are due, in part, to the COVID pandemic, the public's heightened reliance on online shopping for basic goods, and the Nation's needs to move personal protective equipment and related products quickly. Amazon Air estimates that these trends will not significantly diminish when the public health crisis ends.
To address the current and anticipated demand, Amazon Air is increasing use of its own employees for company services and operations, rather than contracting out for services. Amazon Air already has employees in place at the three locations within the scope of this exemption and has represented to TSA that it intends to hire significantly more employees over the next 12 to 18 months.
Hiring surges can occur at all airports throughout the year due to seasonal changes or construction. Most airports can plan ahead for these surges to ensure sufficient staffing in the airport badging offices to begin the vetting process and issue ID media to new employees. However, when a new or existing employer has a significant, sudden increase in employees, all airport vendors can be adversely affected by the strain this places on the airport badging system. It takes significant time to collect the biometric and biographic information needed to initiate CHRCs and security threat assessments (STA), adjudicate CHRCs, and issue the ID media.
Amazon Air has represented to TSA that it has the capability and capacity to assume certain security responsibilities under the ASPs at these airports. These security responsibilities include physical control of access points at the locations; adjudicating CHRCs for disqualifying offenses and submitting STAs for its employees; issuing ID
TSA has determined that Amazon Air possesses the latest, sophisticated access control and monitoring systems that enhance security by significantly restricting access to cargo and aircraft. Amazon Air is in the process of installing these systems at access points at these locations. As a subsidiary of a profitable, private sector leader in technology, Amazon Air benefits from ample resources to purchase advanced equipment as needed, without regard to local government budget restrictions that many airports face. This factor provides a level of assurance that the security capability will remain consistent and substantial. Amazon Air's independent economic stability also provides a level of assurance that it will be able to quickly obtain any necessary expertise it may need to carry out all of the EAA functions going forward.
TSA may grant an exemption from a regulation if TSA determines that the exemption is in the public interest.
Therefore, TSA has determined that it is in the public interest to grant CVG, BWI, and RFD an exemption from the provision in 49 CFR 1542.111 that limits the persons with whom an airport operator may execute an EAA to aircraft operators and foreign air carriers. Under this exemption, CVG, BWI, and RFD, respectively, may enter into an EAA with Amazon Air consistent with TSA EAA-requirements. These exemptions apply only to these airports and their respective EAAs with Amazon Air.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
Information collected through the form HUD-9902 is critical as the data provided allows HUD to demonstrate program impact to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, the data collected on form HUD-9902 plays a key role in analyzing performance and capacity during the Office of Housing Counseling's Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(5) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(5) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(5) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part a final initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on April 20, 2021, finding no violation of section 337 in the above-referenced investigation and, on review, to affirm the finding of no violation.
The investigation is terminated.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On November 27, 2019, the Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based on a complaint filed by EcoFactor, Inc. of Palo Alto, California (“EcoFactor”).
On June 11, 2020, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 10) granting a joint motion to partially terminate the investigation as to the Daikin Respondents based on settlement.
On April 20, 2021, the ALJ issued the final ID in this investigation, holding that no violation of section 337 has occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain smart thermostats, smart HVAC systems, and components thereof, with respect to asserted claims 1, 2, and 5 of patent '497, asserted claims 1, 2, and 5 of patent '322, and asserted claim 9 of patent '371.
Concerning infringement, the ID finds that respondent Google indirectly infringes all of the asserted claims. Specifically, the ID finds that Google induces infringement of all of the asserted claims and contributorily infringes the asserted claims of the '497 and '371 patents. The ID finds that EcoFactor has not shown that respondents ecobee, Vivint and Alarm.com infringe any of the asserted claims of the asserted patents.
Regarding the domestic industry requirement, the ID finds that EcoFactor has not satisfied the technical or economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement with respect to any of the asserted patents.
Concerning validity, with respect to the '497 patent, the ID finds that asserted claims 1, 2, and 5 have not been shown to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, and have not been shown to be invalid as anticipated or obvious under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, respectively. The ID further finds that the asserted claims of the '497 patent have not been shown to be invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2. The ID finds, however, that the asserted claims of the '497 patent have been shown to be invalid for lack of written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 1.
As to the '322 patent, the ID finds that asserted claims 1, 2, and 5 have not been shown to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The ID further finds that the asserted claims of the '322 patent have been shown to be invalid for lack of written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 1. The ID also finds that the asserted claims of the '322 patent have not been shown to be invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2. The ID finds, however, that claim 1 has been shown to be invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102, but that claims 2 and 5 have been shown to be invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to the '371 patent, the ID finds that asserted claim 9 has not been shown to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, and has not been shown to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
On May 3, 2021, EcoFactor filed a petition for review of various portions of the ID, and respondent Google filed a contingent review for certain aspects of the ID. On May 4, 2021, respondent ecobee filed a contingent petition for review of certain aspect of the ID.
On May 11, 2021, complainant EcoFactor filed a response to Respondents' petitions for review. Also on May 11, 2021, respondents ecobee, Vivint, and Google each filed their respective responses. On May 12, 2021, OUII filed a response to the private parties' petitions.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review in part the ID: (1) To review the language supporting the ID's determination that EcoFactor failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under subparagraphs (A) and (B), and on review to strike the last paragraph on page 560 (
The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID, including the ID's finding of no violation of section 337 in this investigation.
The investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on July 20, 2021.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on May 25, 2021 pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Open RF Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 21, 2020, Open RF Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 11, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 16, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and EVESE intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 24, 2020, EVESE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on February 10, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 25, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 5, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on May 27, 2021 pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 2, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CHEDE-8 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On December 4, 2019, CHEDE-8 filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 6, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 25, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Beijing Gefei Tech Co., Ltd., Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 24, 2021. A notice was published in the
1.
2.
A. Authorities. This Order is issued pursuant to the following authorities:
1. 29 U.S.C. 551
2. 5 U.S.C. 301-02; and
3. 5 U.S.C. app. 2, 1-15.
B. Directives Affected. Secretary's Order 10-2020 is hereby withdrawn.
3.
4.
5.
A. The Deputy Secretary is responsible for issuing written guidance, as necessary, to implement this Order.
B. The Committee Management Officer, as required by § 8(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is responsible for coordinating all Federal Advisory Committee activities with DOL agencies.
C. The Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, in consultation with the Deputy Secretary, Solicitor of Labor, and the Committee Management Officer, is responsible for maintaining internal Department guidance related to the selection and appointment of members to Committees.
D. The Solicitor of Labor is responsible for providing legal advice to the Department on all matters arising in the implementation and administration of this Order.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice includes the summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the party listed below.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before August 25, 2021.
You may submit your comments including the docket number of the petition by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Jessica D. Senk, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, sections 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that the return line is unrelated to fuel dispensing, and that therefore a shutoff valve on this line is not necessary. Using a shutoff valve on the return line could cause engine damage and an over-fueling condition, due to the fuel not being able to return to the locomotive's fuel tank. This over-fueling condition would increase harmful exhaust emissions such as carbon monoxide, and would therefore create a health risk to locomotive operators and miners in the affected area.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) The Brookville diesel motor has been equipped with a fuel tank constructed of
(b) During the fueling process, the motor's engine will be shut off, which eliminates unnecessary idling. The 8-gallons per minute fuel dispensing pump will operate utilizing a separate battery power source that has been added to the motor.
(c) The fuel dispensing hose is a 50-foot hose with a no latch open device and a self-closing valve. A power supply switch is located at the pump's nozzle storage bracket, and an emergency shut-off switch is located above the fuel tank. The emergency switch is protected by a cover, so that the switch is in the off position anytime the cover is closed.
(d) The following fueling procedures have been developed and posted above the fuel tank.
• Make sure fueling sign is hung.
• Inspect fire extinguishers prior to beginning the fueling process.
• Ensure fire extinguishers are located out-by the fueling point.
• Verify fuel hose, equipment, etc. are in good working condition.
• Test for methane in the atmosphere.
• Check for potential ignition sources and other hazards in the area.
• Notify the mine dispatcher before starting.
• Unlock and open the emergency switch.
• Check for any spills after the fueling is complete.
• Shut off the emergency switch and close locked cover.
• Notify the mine dispatcher after completion.
(e) The tank is equipped with a 4 inch vent designed to open at a pressure not to exceed 2.5 pounds per square inch, as required by 75.1904(b).
(f) Tank openings are marked and the tank, fittings and components are pressure-tested.
(g) The pump dispensing line is equipped with a manual shut off valve that serves as anti-siphoning device as required under 75.1905(b)(iii).
(h) Additional fire suppression and detection are installed to ensure that the
(i) At no time, the motor will be operated unattended, in accordance with 75.1916(e).
(j) Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved part 48 training plan to the DM. The proposed revisions will include initial and refresher training regarding compliance with the terms and conditions of the PDO.
The petitioner asserts that the alternate method proposed will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Standard on Reports of Injuries to Employees Operating Mechanical Power Presses.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by September 24, 2021.
Theda Kenney or Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
In the event that a worker is injured while operating a mechanical power press, 29 CFR 1910.217(g) requires the employer to report, within 30 days of the occurrence, all point-of-operation injuries to the operators or other employees to either the Director of the Directorate of Standards and Guidance at OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210 or electronically at
OSHA's Mechanical Power Press injury reporting requirement at 1910.217(g) is a separate injury reporting requirement from OSHA's severe injury reporting requirements which are part of 1904.39. Under 1904.39, employers must, within 24 hours, report to OSHA any work-related injury requiring hospitalization as well as work-related incidents resulting in an amputation or loss of an eye. The Mechanical Power Press Standard requires employers to report all injuries involving operation of a power press to OSHA or an appropriate state agency within 30 days. Injuries that must be reported under 1910.217(g) include those that are also reportable under 1904.39 as well as those that are recordable under the recordkeeping standard (29 CFR 1904).
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply. For example, by using automated or other
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirement contained in the Standard on Reports of Injuries to Employees Operating Mechanical Power Presses (29 CFR 1910.217(g)). The agency is requesting an adjustment decrease in the number of burden hours from 400 to 390, a total reduction of 10 burden hours. The decrease is due to a decrease in the estimated number of injury reports caused by mechanical power presses (from 1,190 to 1,170).
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Due to security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments.
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the
James S. Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Beryllium Standards for General Industry.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by September 24, 2021.
Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
This ICR is based on the 2017 final rule for Beryllium which includes general industry, construction, and maritime. Subsequently, the agency has proposed revisions to the beryllium standards. OSHA proposed revisions to the beryllium general industry standard in December 2018 (83 FR 63746) titled “Occupational Exposure to Beryllium in General Industry,” and to the beryllium construction and shipyard standards in October 2019 (84 FR 53902) titled “Occupational Exposure to Beryllium in Construction and Shipyard Sectors.” The agency is planning to finalize the beryllium standards in two separate rulemakings in the coming months. The modification and update of these beryllium standards will clarify the provisions contained in the 2017 general industry standard and will better tailor the construction and shipyard standards to address the particular operations in these sectors involving exposure to beryllium. These two beryllium final rules contain information collection requirements that will have an impact on this ICR when they are published.
The information collection requirements specified by the beryllium standards for general industry helps protect workers from harmful elements when exposed to permissible exposure limits of beryllium and beryllium compounds in the workplace. The information collection requirements in the 2017 Standards involve the following elements of the standard.
Paragraph (d)(2) contains the performance options where the employer must assess the 8-hour TWA exposure and the 15-minute short-term exposure for each employee on the basis of any combination of air monitoring data and objective data sufficient to accurately characterize airborne exposure to beryllium. Employers do not have to conduct initial exposure monitoring if they rely on objective data that would satisfy the exposure assessment requirements contained in this standard. Paragraph (d)(3) says the employer must perform initial monitoring to assess the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee on the basis of one or more personal breathing zone air samples that reflect the airborne exposure of employees on each shift, for each job classification, and in each work area and the employer is required to do periodic monitoring when the most recent exposure monitoring indicates that airborne exposure is at or above the action level but at or below the TWA PEL, the employer must repeat such monitoring within six months of the most recent monitoring. Paragraph (d)(4) requires the employer to reassess airborne exposure whenever a change in the production, process, control equipment, personnel, or work practices may reasonably be expected to result in new or additional airborne exposure at or above the action level or STEL, or when the employer has any reason to believe that new or additional airborne exposure at or above the action level or STEL has occurred.
In paragraph (f)(1)(i) the employer is required to establish, implement, and maintain a written exposure control plan and what information and procedures are included in the plan. Paragraph (f)(1)(ii) requires the employer to review and evaluate the effectiveness of each written exposure control plan at least annually and update it, as necessary. Also, in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) the employer must make a copy of the written exposure control plan accessible to each employee who is, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium in accordance with OSHA's Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records (Records Access) standard (29 CFR 1910.1020(e)).
Paragraph (g)(2) requires the employer to provide respiratory protection for the selection and use of respirators, medical evaluations of employees required to use respirators, respirator fit testing procedures for tight-fitting respirators and procedures for proper use of respirators in routine and reasonably foreseeable emergency situations.
Paragraph (h)(3)(iii) requires the employer to inform in writing the persons or the business entities who launder, clean, or repair the personal protective clothing or equipment required by this standard of the potentially harmful effects of airborne exposure to and dermal contact with beryllium and that the personal protective clothing and equipment must be handled in accordance with this standard. This provision is intended to reduce exposure to beryllium for employees handling beryllium-contaminated materials by providing employers and employees handling these materials the information necessary to protect employees from beryllium exposure.
Under paragraph (k)(1) the employer is required to make medical surveillance available at no cost to the employee, and at a reasonable time and place, to each employee who: (A) Is reasonably expected to be exposed at or above the action level for more than 30 days per year; (B) shows signs or symptoms of chronic beryllium disease (CBD) or other beryllium-related health effects; (C) is exposed to beryllium during an emergency; or (D) most recent written medical opinion required by paragraph (k)(6) or (k)(7) recommends periodic medical surveillance.
In paragraph (k)(5) of medical surveillance, the employer is required to ensure that the employee receives a written medical report from the licensed physician within 45 days of the examination (including any follow-up beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test (BeLPT) required under paragraph (k)(3)(ii)(E) of this standard) and that the physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) explains the results of the examination to the employee. The requirement for a written medical report ensures that the employee receives a record of all findings. In paragraph (k)(6) of medical surveillance the employer is required to obtain a written medical opinion from the licensed physician within 45 days of the medical examination and what must be contained in the written medical opinion. Under paragraph (k)(7) of medical surveillance, when being referred to the CBD Diagnostic Center, the employer is required to provide an evaluation at no cost to the employee at a CBD diagnostic center that is mutually agreed upon by the employer and the employee. The examination must be provided within 30 days of: (A) The employer's receipt of a physician's written medical opinion to the employer that recommends referral to a CBD diagnostic center; or (B) the employee presenting to the employer a physician's written medical report indicating that the employee has been confirmed positive or diagnosed with CBD, or recommending referral to a CBD diagnostic center. The employer must ensure that the employee receives all written medical reports from the CBD diagnostic center that contains all the information required in paragraph (k)(5)(i), (ii), (iv), and (v) and that the PLHCP explains the results of the examination to the employee within 30 days of the examination. Also, the employer is require to obtain a written medical opinion from the CBD diagnostic center within 30 days of the medical examination and ensure that each employee receives a copy of the written medical opinion from the CBD diagnostic center within 30 days of any medical examination performed for that employee.
In paragraph (m)(2) the employer is required to post warning signs at each approach to a regulated area. Paragraph (m)(3) requires the employer to label each bag and container of clothing,
In paragraph (m)(4)(iv) the employer is required to make a copy of this standard and its appendices readily available at no cost to each employee and designated employee representative(s).
Under paragraph (n) recordkeeping, the employer is required to make and maintain records for the air monitoring data, objective data, medical surveillance, and training. Access to these records must be made available upon request for examination and copying to the Assistant Secretary, the Director, each employee, and each employee's designated representative(s) in accordance the Records Access standard (29 CFR 1910.1020).
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting a program change decrease from 194,261 hours to 82,822 hours, a difference of 111,439 hours in the burden. This is a revision to the currently approved Beryllium Information Collections for the general industry (29 CFR part 1910.1024) by removing those collection of information requirements contained in the construction and shipyard sectors from this ICR. OSHA is proposing that the burden hours and cost for maintenance and material remain the same. The agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Due to security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments.
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
James S. Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections.
Comments are due by September 24, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Claire Little, NASA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JF0000, Washington, DC 20546, 202-358-2375 or email
To ensure accurate reporting of Government-owned, contractor-held property on the financial statements and to provide information necessary for effective property management in accordance with FAR Part 45, NASA
Electronic.
Annual Responses: 1,200.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, July 22, 2021.
Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the meeting will be open to the public via live webcast only. Visit the agency's homepage (
This meeting will be open to the public.
1. Request for Information and Comment, Digital Assets and Related Technologies.
2. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Complex Credit Union Leverage Ratio.
Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, or the Commission) has issued an exemption in response to a March 17, 2021, request from Florida Power and Light (FPL or the licensee). The approval permits a one-time schedular exemption to allow submittal of a license renewal application for the St. Lucie, Unit No. 2 facility earlier than 20 years before the expiration of the operating license, which expires on April 6, 2043.
The exemption was issued on July 20, 2021.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0138 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael Mahoney, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3867; email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL, the licensee) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-16, which authorizes operation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 (St. Lucie 2), a pressurized water reactor. St. Lucie
Part 54 of title 10 of the
The licensee has informed the NRC that it plans to submit the St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 subsequent license renewal application (SLRA) earlier than 20 years before expiration of the renewed facility operating license for St. Lucie 2. Based on the requirement in 10 CFR 54.17(c), a subsequent license renewal (SLR) application for St. Lucie 2 cannot be filed prior to April 6, 2023 without an exemption. As a result, by letter dated March 17, 2021 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML21076A315), pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12, FPL requested a one-time exemption from the 10 CFR 54.17(c) schedular requirement.
Under 10 CFR 54.15, exemptions from the requirements of part 54 are governed by regulations at 10 CFR 50.12. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of this part, which are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. However, an exemption will not be granted unless special circumstances are present as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2). In its application, FPL states that special circumstances, as described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) apply to its request, which states that special circumstances are present when “Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.”
The Commission's basis for establishing the 20-year limit contained in 10 CFR 54.17(c) is discussed in the 1991 Statements of Consideration for 10 CFR part 54 (56 FR 64963). The limit was established to ensure that substantial operating experience was accumulated by a licensee before a renewal application is submitted such that any plant-specific concerns regarding aging would be disclosed. In amending the rule in 1995, the Commission indicated that it would consider plant-specific exemption requests by applicants who believe that sufficient information is available to justify applying for license renewal earlier than 20 years from expiration of the current license. The NRC staff has determined that granting the licensee's proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
FPL is seeking an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c) for schedular relief, which would only relieve FPL of the schedular requirement to wait until April 6, 2023 to submit an SLRA for St. Lucie Unit 2. The action does not change the manner in which the plant operates and would maintain public health and safety, because no additional changes are made as a result of the action. FPL must still conduct all environmental reviews required by 10 CFR part 51 and all safety reviews and evaluations required by 10 CFR part 54 when preparing the SLRA for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.
Pending final action on the SLR application, the NRC will continue to conduct all regulatory activities associated with licensing, inspection, and oversight, and will take whatever action may be necessary to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety. This exemption does not affect NRC's authority, applicable to all licenses, to modify, suspend, or revoke a license for cause, such as the identification of a serious safety concern. Therefore, the NRC finds that the action does not cause undue risk to public health and safety.
As discussed previously, the proposed exemption would only allow a schedular exemption. This exemption does not change any site security features, procedures, staffing, or other security-related matters. Therefore, the NRC finds that the action is consistent with common defense and security.
The regulation at 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) lists special circumstances for which an exemption may be granted. Pursuant to the regulation, it is necessary for one of these special circumstances to be present in order for the NRC to consider granting an exemption request. As noted above, FPL stated that the special circumstance that applies to this exemption request is found in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), which states, “Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.”
In initially promulgating 10 CFR 54.17(c) in 1991, the Commission stated that the purpose of the 20-year time limit was “to ensure that substantial operating experience is accumulated by a licensee before it submits a renewal application,” such that any plant-specific concerns regarding aging would be disclosed (56 FR 64963). At that time, the Commission found that 20 years of operating experience provided a sufficient basis for license renewal applications. However, in issuing the amended Part 54 in 1995, the Commission indicated it would consider an exemption to this requirement if sufficient information was available on a plant-specific basis to justify submission of an application to renew a license before completion of 20 years of operation (60 FR 22488). FPL's exemption request is consistent with the Commission's intent to consider plant-specific requests and is permitted by 10 CFR 54.15.
The licensee stated that St. Lucie 2 is the sister unit to St. Lucie 1. The two units currently have a combined operating history of over 80 reactor-years, with Unit 1 having over 45 years and Unit 2 having over 37 years of operating experience. St. Lucie 1 operating experience is directly applicable to St. Lucie 2 since the two units are similar in design, operation, maintenance, use of operating experience, and environment.
According to the licensee, the materials of construction for St. Lucie 2 structures, systems, and components are typically identical or similar to those used for the corresponding St. Lucie 1 structures, systems, and components. The licensee specified that, because of the similarities between St. Lucie 1 and
St. Lucie Unit 2 is physically located adjacent to Unit 1. As such, the external environments would be similar for both units. Internal environments for both units are also similar due to the similarity in plant design and operation.
The licensee stated that an administrative procedure is used by its entire nuclear fleet for the review and dissemination of operating experience obtained from both external and internal sources. This procedure requires screening of information for potential St. Lucie applicability; the information is received from such sources as the NRC (
Given the similarities between units, the NRC staff finds that the operating experience at Unit 1 is applicable to Unit 2 for purposes of the license renewal review. At the time of the exemption request, Unit 1 had achieved over 45 years of operating experience, which is applicable to Unit 2, and that Unit 2, itself, has over 37 years of operating experience. The NRC staff has determined that sufficient combined operating experience exists to satisfy the intent of 10 CFR 54.17(c), and the application of the regulation in this case is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that FPL's request meets the special circumstance requirement in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii).
The NRC's approval of an exemption to scheduling requirements belongs to a category of actions that the NRC, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a categorical exclusion to environmental analysis, after first finding that the category of actions does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Specifically, the exemption is categorically excluded from further analysis under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(G).
Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), the granting of exemption from the requirements of any regulation of chapter 10 is a categorical exclusion provided that (i) there is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which an exemption if sought involve certain categories of requirements, including scheduling requirements. The basis for NRC's determination is provided in the following evaluation of the requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)-(vi).
To qualify for a categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i), the exemption must involve a no significant hazards consideration. The criteria for making a no significant hazards consideration determination are found in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff has determined that granting the exemption request involves no significant hazards consideration because allowing a one-time exemption from the 10 CFR 54.17(c) schedular requirement does not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i) are met.
The exemption constitutes a change to a schedular requirement which is administrative in nature, and does not involve any change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite and does not contribute to any significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(ii) and (iii) are met.
The exempted regulation is not associated with construction, and the exemption does not propose any changes to the facility or the site, does not alter the site, and does not change the operation of the site. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv) are met because there is no significant construction impact.
The exemption constitutes a change to a schedular requirement which is administrative in nature and does not impact the probability or consequences of accidents. Thus, there is no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, a radiological accident. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(v) are met.
To qualify for a categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi)(G), the exemption must involve scheduling requirements. The requested exemption involves an exemption from scheduling requirements because it would allow FPL to submit an SLRA for St. Lucie Unit 2 earlier than 20 years before the expiration of its current license. Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi) are met.
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption meets the eligibility criteria for a categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the approval of this exemption request.
The NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances, as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), are present. Therefore, the NRC hereby grants the licensee a one-time exemption for St Lucie 2, from the requirements of 10 CFR 54.17(c), to allow the submittal of a subsequent license renewal application earlier than 20 years before the expiration of the St. Lucie 2 license that is currently in effect.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/RA/
Bo M. Pham, Director,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Weeks of July 26, August 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, 2021.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 26, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 2, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 9, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 16, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 23, 2021.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 30, 2021.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 903 to permit Monday and Wednesday expirations for options listed pursuant to the Short Term Options Series Program on the Invesco QQQ Trust; Series (“QQQ”) ETF Trust. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend Rule 903, Series of Options Open for Trading, to permit Monday and Wednesday expirations for options listed pursuant to the Short Term Options Series Program (“Program”) on QQQ.
A Short Term Options Series is a series in an option class that is approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday that is a business day and that expires on the Monday, Wednesday or Friday of the next business week, or, in the case of a series that is listed on a Friday and expires on a Monday, is listed one business week and one business day prior to that expiration.
As proposed, with respect to Monday QQQ Expirations within Rule 903 Commentary .10, the Exchange may open for trading on any Friday or Monday that is a business day series of options on QQQ to expire on any Monday of the month that is a business day and is not a Monday in which Quarterly Options Series on the same class expire (“Monday QQQ Expirations”), provided that Monday QQQ Expirations that are listed on a Friday must be listed at least one business week and one business day prior to the expiration. The Exchange may list up to five consecutive Monday QQQ Expirations at one time; the
As proposed, with respect to Wednesday QQQ Expirations within Rule 903 Commentary .10, the Exchange may open for trading on any Tuesday or Wednesday that is a business day series of options on QQQ to expire on any Wednesday of the month that is a business day and is not a Wednesday in which Quarterly Options Series on the same class expire (“Wednesday QQQ Expirations”). The Exchange may list up to five consecutive Wednesday QQQ Expirations at one time; the Exchange may have no more than a total of five Wednesday QQQ Expirations.
The interval between strike prices for the proposed Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations will be the same as those for the current Short Term Option Series for Wednesday and Friday expirations applicable to the Program.
Pursuant to Rule 900.2NY,
Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the Program, the Exchange is limited to opening thirty (30) series for each expiration date for the specific class.
Finally, the Exchange is amending Rule 903(h), which addresses the listing of Short Term Options Series that expire in the same week as monthly or quarterly options series. Currently, that rule states that no Short Term Option Series may expire in the same week in which monthly option series on the same class expire (with the exception of Monday and Wednesday SPY Expirations) or, in the case of Quarterly Options Series, on an expiration that coincides with an expiration of Quarterly Options Series on the same class.
The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of P.M.-settled Monday and Wednesday QQQ expirations. The Exchange has the necessary capacity and surveillance programs in place to support and properly monitor trading in the proposed Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations. The Exchange currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire Monday and Wednesday for SPY and has not experienced any market disruptions nor issues with capacity. The Exchange currently has surveillance programs in place to support and properly monitor trading in Short Term Option Series that expire Monday and Wednesday for SPY.
Similar to SPY, the introduction of Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and continue the reduction of the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange believes that Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations will allow market participants to purchase QQQ based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed rule change is intended to provide the investing public and other market participants more flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions in QQQ options, thus allowing them to better manage their risk exposure.
In particular, the Exchange believes the Program has been successful to date and that Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations should simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risk against market movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur throughout the month in the same way that the Program has expanded the landscape of hedging. Similarly, the Exchange believes Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and will provide customers with the ability to tailor their investment objectives more effectively. The Exchange currently lists Monday and Wednesday SPY Expirations.
With the exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday, there are no material differences in the treatment of Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations for Short Term Option Series. The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to treat Monday expiration series that expire on a holiday differently than Wednesday or Friday expiration series, since the proposed treatment for Monday expiration series will result in an expiration date that is closer in time to the scheduled expiration date of the series, and therefore may be more representative of anticipated market conditions. Monday SPY expirations are currently treated in this manner.
Given the similarities between Monday and Wednesday SPY Expirations and the proposed Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations, the Exchange believes that applying the provisions in NYSE American Rule 903 Commentary .10 that currently apply to Monday and Wednesday SPY Expirations to Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations is justified. For example, the Exchange believes that allowing Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations and monthly QQQ expirations in the same week will benefit investors and minimize investor confusion by providing Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations in a continuous and uniform manner. The Exchange also believes that it is appropriate to amend NYSE Arca Rule 903(h) to clarify that no Short Term Option Series may expire on the same day as an expiration of Quarterly Option Series on the same class, same as SPY.
The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in Monday and Wednesday expirations, including Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations, in the same way that it monitors trading in the current Short Term Option Series and trading in Monday and Wednesday SPY Expirations. The Exchange also represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new options series. Finally, the Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that having Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations is not a novel proposal, as Monday and Wednesday SPY Expirations are currently listed on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition, as all market participants will be treated in the same manner under this proposal. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition, as nothing prevents the other options exchanges from proposing similar rules to list and trade Short-Term Option Series with Monday and Wednesday expirations.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2021-33. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2021-33, and should be submitted on or before August 16, 2021.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable for MIAX Pearl Equities, an equities trading facility of the Exchange (the “Fee Schedule”)
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule to (i) make conforming changes to the rates of certain liquidity indicator codes that remove liquidity in the Liquidity Indicator Codes and Associated Fees table; (ii) amend the Standard Rates table to increase the rebate for Non-Displayed Orders that Add Liquidity from $0.0022 to $0.0025; and (iii) adopt four Retail Order liquidity indicator codes and associated fees and rebates for each.
The Exchange initially filed this proposal on July 1, 2021 (SR-PEARL-2021-29) and withdrew such filing on July 12, 2021. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective July 12, 2021.
On March 25, 2021, the Exchange filed its proposal to add liquidity indicator codes to its Fee Schedule.
• Liquidity indicator code RA would be applied to a Displayed order
• Liquidity indicator code RB would be applied to a Displayed order that removes liquidity in Tape B securities. The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code RB would be subject to the existing fee of $0.0027 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.05% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code RC would be applied to a Displayed order that removes liquidity in Tape C securities. The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code RC would be subject to the existing fee of $0.0028 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.05% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code Ra would be applied to a Non-Displayed order that removes liquidity in Tape A securities. The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Ra would be subject to the existing fee of $0.0028 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.05% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code Rb would be applied to a Non-Displayed order that removes liquidity in Tape B securities. The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Rb would be subject to the existing fee of $0.0027 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.05% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code Rc would be applied to a Non-Displayed order that removes liquidity in Tape C securities. The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Rc would be subject to the existing fee of $0.0028 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.05% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
Subsequently, on March 31, 2021, the Exchange filed its proposal to universally decrease the fee to remove liquidity in Tapes A, B, and C securities priced at or above $1.00 to $0.0025 per share.
The Exchange now proposes to amend the Liquidity Indicator Codes and Associated Fees table for codes RA, RB, RC, Ra, Rb and Rc to reflect the take rate change associated with Fee Filing No. 2, which established the current fee of $0.0025 per share for orders in Tapes A, B, and C securities that remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Standard Rates table and the Liquidity Indicator Codes and Associated Fees table to increase the rebate provided for Non-Displayed Orders that Add Liquidity from $0.0022 to $0.0025 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code Aa would be applied to a Non-Displayed Order that adds liquidity in Tape A securities. The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Aa would receive a rebate of $0.0025 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.05% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code Ab would be applied to a Non-Displayed Order that adds liquidity in Tape B securities. The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Ab would receive a rebate of $0.0025 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.05% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code Ac would be applied to a Non-Displayed Order that adds liquidity in Tape C securities. The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Ac would receive a rebate of $0.0025 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.05% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
The purpose for this proposed change is for business and competitive reasons.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to adopt four Retail Order liquidity indicator codes; AR, Ar, RR, and Rr, to the Liquidity Indicator Codes and Associated Fees table as described below. The purpose of this change is for business and competitive reasons. The Exchange notes that the use of liquidity indicator codes is not unique to the Exchange and are currently utilized and described in the fee schedules of other equity exchanges.
• Liquidity indicator code AR would be applied to a Displayed Retail Order
The Exchange notes that the proposed rebate is comparable to, and competitive with, the rebate provided by at least one other exchange for Retail Orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share that add liquidity.
• Liquidity indicator code Ar would be applied to a Non-Displayed Retail Order that adds liquidity in Tape A, B, and C securities. The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Ar would receive a rebate of $0.0025 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.05% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
The rate of $0.0025 is consistent with the proposed rate change to the Standard Rates table for Adding Liquidity Non-Displayed Orders as contained in this proposal.
• Liquidity indicator code RR would be applied to a Displayed Retail Order that removes liquidity in Tape A, B, and C securities. The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code RR would be subject to the fee of $0.0025 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.05% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
The rate of $0.0025 is the current fee in effect for orders that remove liquidity.
• Liquidity indicator code Rr would be applied to a Non-Displayed Retail Order that removes liquidity in Tape A, B, and C securities. The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Rr would be subject to the fee of $0.0025 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.05% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
The rate of $0.0025 is the current fee in effect for orders that remove liquidity.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct their order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of sixteen registered equities exchanges, and there are a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 16% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading.
As set forth above, the Exchange filed Fee Filing No. 1 to adopt liquidity indicator codes and included the then-current rates. Subsequently, in Fee Filing No. 2, the Exchange reduced the fee for orders in Tapes A, B, and C securities that remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 to $0.0025 per share. Liquidity indicator codes RA, RB, RC, Ra, Rb, and Rc are appended to orders that remove liquidity. The Exchange believes its proposal to update the Liquidity Indicator Codes and Associated Fees table to reflect the current rate of $0.0025 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 with liquidity indicator codes RA, RB, RC, Ra, Rb, or Rc is equitable and reasonable because it updates the liquidity indicator code table to reflect the established rate that is currently in effect and will apply equally to all Equity Members of the Exchange.
The Exchange's proposal to increase the rebate provided for orders that add liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 from $0.0022 to $0.0025 per share is reasonable and equitably allocated among all Equity Members of the Exchange. Liquidity indicator codes Aa, Ab, and Ac are appended to orders that add liquidity. The Exchange believes that the proposed increase to $0.0025 per share is reasonable in that it represent [sic] a modest increase ($0.003) [sic] from the current rebate for such executions ($0.0022 per share). The Exchange believes that this change is a reasonable means by which to incentivize Equity Members to submit Non-Displayed Orders that add liquidity to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes its proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will apply to all Equity Members equally. Additionally, the Exchange believes its proposed change is reasonable as it is competitive and in line with rebates offered for similar orders on at least one other exchange.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt four new Retail Order liquidity indicator codes is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will apply to all Equity Members equally. The Exchange notes that the use of liquidity indicator codes is not novel and that liquidity indicator codes are used by other equity exchanges.
The Exchange's [sic] believes its proposal to establish a rebate of $0.0037 for a Retail Displayed Order that adds liquidity for securities priced at or above $1.00 is reasonable as it is competitive and in line with the rebate offered for similar Retail Orders on at least one other exchange.
The Exchange's proposal to establish a rebate of $0.0025 for orders with a liquidity indicator code of Ar, Retail Non-Displayed Orders that add liquidity, is reasonable as this rate is consistent with the proposed rate change contained herein for Liquidity Adding Non-Displayed Orders. The Exchange believes its proposed change is reasonable as it is competitive and in line with rebates offered for similar orders on at least one other exchange.
The Exchange believes its proposal to adopt liquidity indicator codes for Retail Displayed Orders that remove liquidity (RR) and for Retail Non-Displayed Orders that remove liquidity (Rr) is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory as the use of liquidity indicator codes is used on other equity exchanges.
The Exchange believes its proposal to establish a fee of $0.0025 for Retail Displayed Orders that remove liquidity (RR) and for Retail Non-Displayed Orders that remove liquidity (Rr) is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory as it applies equally to all Equity Members of the Exchange. Additionally, the rate of $0.0025 for orders that remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 was established by the Exchange in a previous filing
The Exchange believes its proposal provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues and fees and is not unfairly discriminatory. For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the proposal satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities and is not designed to unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. As described more fully below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition, the Exchange believes that its transaction pricing is subject to significant competitive forces, and that the proposed fees and rebates described herein are appropriate to address such forces.
The Exchange believes the Liquidity Indicator Codes and Associated Fees table will make the Fee Schedule clearer and eliminate the potential for confusion in regard to fees charged and rebates earned, thereby removing impediments to, and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest. Further, as noted above, this practice is consistent with the pricing practices of other exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional order flow to the Exchange, thereby promoting market depth, enhanced execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency for all Equity Members. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would allow the Exchange to continue to compete with other routing and execution venues by providing competitive pricing for transactions in Adding Liquidity Non-Displayed Orders
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would incentivize market participants to direct order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all Equity Members by providing more trading opportunities and encourages Equity Members to send orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all Equity Members. The proposed fees and rebates for Retail Orders and the proposed rebate for Adding Liquidity Non-Displayed Orders would be available to all similarly situated market participants, and, as such, the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on competition among market participants on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe its adoption of new liquidity indicator codes for Retail Orders will impose any burden on intramarket competition. The use of liquidity indicator codes is not new or novel as liquidity indicator codes are used on other equity exchanges.
As such, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes its proposal will benefit competition as the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Equity Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow to, including fifteen other equities exchanges and numerous alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than 16% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced to the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates generally, including with respect to Retail Orders and Adding Liquidity Non-Displayed Orders, as market participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchanges and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As described above, the proposed changes are competitive proposals through which the Exchange is seeking to encourage certain order flow to the Exchange and to promote market quality through pricing incentives that are similar in structure and purpose to pricing programs at other Exchanges.
Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX” or “EDGX Equities”) proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“EDGX Equities”) to (1) modify the standard rate for securities priced at or above $1.00 that remove liquidity, (2) remove certain fee codes in connection with internalization, (3) adopt a new tier under each of the Growth Tiers, the Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume Tier, and the Remove Volume Tiers, and, as a result, define the term “Step-Up ADAV”, and (4) eliminate a Remove Volume Tier and a Retail Volume Tier.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
As stated above, the Exchange currently assesses a standard rate of $0.00280 per share for orders that remove liquidity in securities priced at $1.00 or more. The Exchange proposes to amend the standard rate for orders that remove liquidity in securities priced at $1.00 or more from a fee of $0.00280 per share to $0.00285 per share and reflects this change in the Fee Codes and Associated Fee where applicable (
The Fee Codes and Associate Fees section of the Fee Schedule lists all available fee codes for orders on EDGX. In particular, current fee code EA is appended to internalization
Under footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule the Exchange currently offers various Add/Remove Volume Tiers. Specifically, the Exchange offers two Growth Tiers that each provide an enhanced rebate for Members' qualifying orders yielding fee codes B, V, Y, 3 and 4,
The Exchange now proposes to adopt a new Growth Tier 2, a new Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume Tier 2,
For achieving the proposed criteria, a Member will receive a proposed enhanced rebate of $0.0027 per share on qualifying orders (
Overall, the new Growth, Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume, and Remove Volume tiers are designed to provide Members with an additional opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate or reduced fee by increasing their order flow to the Exchange, which further contributes to a deeper, more liquid market and provides even more execution opportunities for active market participants. Incentivizing an increase in both liquidity adding volume and in liquidity removing volume, through additional criteria and enhanced rebate opportunities, encourages liquidity adding Members on the Exchange to contribute to a deeper, more liquid market, and liquidity executing Members on the Exchange to increase transactions and take execution opportunities provided by such increased liquidity, together providing for overall enhanced price discovery and price improvement opportunities on the Exchange. As such, increased overall order flow benefits all Members by contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate Remove Volume Tier 2 and Retail Volume Tier 3. Current Remove Volume Tier 2 provides a reduced fee of $0.0026 on qualifying orders (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule changes reflect a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all Members.
Regarding the proposed change to the standard rates, the Exchange believes that amending the standard rate for orders that remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 is reasonable because, as stated above, in order to operate in the highly competitive equities markets, the Exchange and its competing exchanges seek to offer similar pricing structures, including assessing comparable standard fees for orders in securities priced at or above $1.00.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change to remove fee codes EA and ER is reasonable as the Exchange has observed that a majority of other equities exchanges do not assess a different rate for internalization orders that add or remove liquidity, and therefore, seeks to more competitively align its rates assessed on orders that add or remove liquidity with those assessed on other equities exchanges by also not applying a different rate for internalized orders. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess internalization orders that add or remove liquidity the same existing corresponding rates currently applied to orders that add or remove liquidity that are not internalized. Such current rates will apply automatically and uniformly to internalizing orders that add or remove liquidity as they do today for all other orders that add or remove liquidity.
Also, as described above, the Exchange notes that relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges,
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed new Growth, Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume, and Remove Volume tiers are reasonable because each new tier will be available to all Members, as the existing tiers currently are, and provide all Members with an additional opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate or reduced fee, as applicable. The Exchange further believes the proposed new Growth, Non-Displayed Step-Up, and Remove Volume tiers are a reasonable means to encourage overall growth in Members' overall order flow to the Exchange and to incentivize Members to continue to provide liquidity adding and liquidity removing to the Exchange by offering them an additional opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate or reduced fee on qualifying orders than those opportunities currently under the Add/Remove Volume Tiers in Footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes that the proposed tiers will generally benefit all market participants by incentivizing continuous liquidity and thus, deeper more liquid markets as well as increased execution opportunities. Indeed, the Exchange notes that greater add volume order flow may provide for deeper, more liquid markets and execution opportunities at improved prices, and greater remove volume order flow may increase transactions on the Exchange, which the Exchange believes incentivizes liquidity providers to submit additional liquidity and execution opportunities. This overall increase in activity deepens the Exchange's liquidity pool, offers additional cost savings, supports the quality of price discovery, promotes market transparency and improves market quality, for all investors. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change to define the term “Step-Up ADAV” is reasonable as it will clarify terminology used in the Fee Schedule, to the benefit of all Members.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed tiers are reasonable as they do not represent a significant departure from the criteria or corresponding rates currently offered in the Fee Schedule, and that the proposed enhanced rebates or enhanced fee, as applicable, are commensurate with the new criteria. More specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed criteria, which is the same in each new tier, and corresponding rates are commensurate with surrounding tiers; in that the proposed criteria in new Growth Tier 2 is incrementally more difficult than that of Growth Tier 1 and thus appropriately offers a greater incentive, the proposed criteria in new Remove Volume Tier 1 is incrementally less difficult than that of Remove Volume Tier 2 (current Tier 1)
The Exchange also believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of fees and rebates and is not unfairly discriminatory because all Members are eligible for the new Growth, Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume, and Remove Volume tiers and have the opportunity to meet the tiers' criteria and receive the applicable enhanced rebate or reduced fee if such criteria is met. Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would definitely result in any Members qualifying for the proposed tiers. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the proposed tiers will impact Member activity, the Exchange anticipates that at least five Members will be able to satisfy the criteria proposed under each of the three new tiers. The Exchange also notes that proposed tiers will not adversely impact any Member's ability to qualify for reduced fees or enhanced rebate offered under other tiers. Should a Member not meet the proposed new criteria, the Member will merely not receive that corresponding enhanced rebate or reduced fee, as applicable.
Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change to eliminate Remove Volume Tier 2 and Retail Volume Tier 3 is reasonable because the Exchange is not required to maintain this tier or provide Members an opportunity to receive reduced fees or enhanced rebates. The Exchange believes the proposal to eliminate these tiers is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all Members (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency for all Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed rule change to update the standard fee applicable to liquidity removing orders in securities priced at or above a $1.00 does not impose any burden on intramarket competition because the standard rate will continue to apply automatically and uniformly to all liquidity removing orders priced at or above $1.00. Similarly, all Members' internalizing orders that add or remove liquidity will no longer yield fee codes EA or ER, and, instead, will automatically and uniformly be assessed the fees already in place for all other orders generally that add or remove liquidity. The Exchange also notes that the proposed new Growth, Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume, Remove Volume tiers applies to all Members equally in that all Members are eligible for these tiers, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the tiers' criteria and will receive the enhanced rebates or reduced fee on their qualifying orders if such criteria is met. Additionally, the proposed tiers are designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the new criteria will incentivize market participants to direct liquidity adding and removing order flow to the Exchange, providing for additional execution opportunities for market
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than 16% of the market share.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to reflect an amendment to the Application and Exemptive Order governing the following funds, shares of which are listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E: T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF, T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF, T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF, T. Rowe Price Equity Income ETF, and T. Rowe Price U.S. Equity Research ETF. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange adopted NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E for the purpose of permitting the listing and trading, or trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”), of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares, which are securities issued by an actively managed open-end investment management company.
The Issuer filed a seventh amended application for an order under Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act for exemptions from various provisions of the 1940 Act and rules thereunder (the “Prior Application”).
Under the Prior Exemptive Order, the Funds are required to publish a basket of securities and cash that, while different from the Fund's portfolio, is designed to closely track its daily performance (“Proxy Portfolio”). The Prior Application stated that each Fund's Proxy Portfolio will be determined such that at least 80% of its total assets will overlap with the portfolio weightings of the Fund (the “Portfolio Overlap”). As set forth in the Approval Order and in the Notice, investments made by the T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF, T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF, T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF, T. Rowe Price Equity Income ETF, and T. Rowe Price U.S. Equity Research ETF will comply with the conditions set forth in the Prior Application and the Prior Exemptive Order.
On February 4, 2021, as amended on March 30, 2021, the Issuer sought to amend the Prior Exemptive Order to permit use of creation baskets
On May 18, 2021, the Commission issued an amended order that, among other things, permits each Fund's Portfolio Overlap to be less than 80% (the “Updated Exemptive Order”).
Except for the change noted above, all other representations made in the respective rule filings remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the Funds. The Funds will also continue to comply with the requirements of Rule 8.601-E.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed revision is intended to reflect the change in the Updated Application and the Updated Exemptive Order that permits each of the Funds' Portfolio Overlap to be less than 80%. As noted, the Approval Order and the Notice reflected that the Funds' Portfolio Overlap would be at least 80%. The proposed rule change would permit the Funds to operate consistent with this updated condition in the Updated Application and the Updated Exemptive Order. Except for the changes noted above, all other representations made in the respective rule filings remain unchanged and, as noted, will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the Funds.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. As noted, the purpose of the filing is to reflect an amendment to the Prior Exemptive Order governing the listing and trading of these Funds. To the extent that the proposed rule change would continue to permit listing and trading of another type of actively-managed ETF that has characteristics different from existing actively-managed and index ETFs, the Exchange believes that the proposal would benefit investors by continuing to promote competition among various ETF products.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to (i) modify the Priority Customer Rebate Program (“PCRP”)
Exchange Rule 518(b)(7) defines a cPRIME Order as a type of complex order
In conjunction with the implementation of cPRIME Orders on the Exchange, the Exchange amended its Priority Customer Rebate Program to establish a per contract credit rate for cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers.
In conjunction with the removal of the per credit cap of 1,000 contracts as described above, the Exchange now proposes to adopt a new table under the PCRP for cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers where the max leg of the order is greater than 1,000 contracts. The table will provide a tiered agency credit rate for cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers dependent upon the break-up percentage and the largest leg of the order being greater than 1,000 contracts for Members in PCRP Tiers 1-4, unless the Member is eligible to receive the alternative cPRIME Agency Order Credit amount for cPRIME Agency Orders in Tier 4 of the PRCP,
Orders that have a max leg size of 1,000 contracts or less will continue to receive the agency credit described in PCRP Tier 1-4, unless the Member is eligible to receive the alternative cPRIME Agency Order Credit amount for cPRIME Agency Orders in Tier 4 of the PCRP, in which case the order will earn a per contract credit of $0.12.
The table will provide a per contract agency credit based upon the break-up percentage of the order. Specifically, orders with a break-up % of 0-10% will earn a credit of $0.05 per contract; orders with a break-up percentage
For example, if the cPRIME Agency Order has two legs (one for 400 contracts and the other for 1,200 contracts) and trades 30% with an AOC Response, the order would receive an agency credit of $0.07 per contract for all legs of the order, as the max leg of the order was greater than 1,000 contracts and 30% of the order was broken up. The portion of the order that was broken up will also receive the agency credit of $0.07 per contract.
The decision to offer tiered cPRIME agency credits and to remove the credit cap is based on an analysis of current revenue and volume levels and is designed to encourage Priority Customer order flow to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes its proposal provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues and fees and is not unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 16% of the market share.
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or discontinue use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. For example, on March 1, 2019, the Exchange filed with the Commission an immediately effective filing to decrease certain credits assessable to Members pursuant to the PCRP.
Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable. In response to the competitive environment, the Exchange offers specific rates and credits in its fees schedule, like those of other options exchanges' fees schedules, which the Exchange believes provides incentives to Members to increase order flow of certain qualifying orders.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to remove the 1,000 contract cap limitation per leg of cPRIME Agency Orders and the associated waiver of same, and the proposed per contract credit rebate table will encourage Priority Customer order flow to auctions. Increased Priority Customer order flow benefits all market participants because it continues to attract liquidity to the Exchange by providing more trading opportunities. This attracts Market Makers and other liquidity providers, thus, facilitating price improvement in the auction process, signaling additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants, and, as a result, increasing liquidity on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt a tiered approach to rebates for cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that the proposal is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Exchange is only one of several options venues to which market participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory in that competing options exchanges offer similar fees and credits in connection with similar price improvement auctions.
cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers that have a max leg size of 1,000 contracts or less will continue to receive the agency credit described in PCRP Tier 1-4, unless the Member is eligible to receive the alternative cPRIME Agency Order Credit amount for cPRIME Agency Orders in Tier 4 of the PCRP, in which case the order will earn a per contract credit of $0.12.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a new table to provide a tiered credit rate for cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers whose largest leg size is greater than 1,000 contracts is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act
In addition, The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange believes that providing rebates for Priority Customers that submit cPRIME Agency Orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed rebate schedule will apply equally to all cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers. The Exchange believes that the application of the rebate is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, as stated above, Priority Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange, in turn providing more trading opportunities and attracting other market participants, thus, facilitating tighter spreads, increased order flow and trading opportunities to the benefit of all market participants. Moreover, the options industry has a long history of providing preferential pricing to Priority Customer orders, and the Exchange's current fees schedule currently does so in many places, as does the fee structure of at least one other exchange.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes will apply uniformly to all eligible Priority Customer orders. The proposed change is designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this proposal will continue to encourage Members to submit cPRIME Agency Orders for Priority Customers, which will increase liquidity and benefit all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The Exchange notes the fact that preferential pricing to Priority Customers is a long-standing options industry practice. The proposed rebate changes serve to enhance Priority Customer order flow to the Exchange's Price Improvement Mechanism, which, as a result, facilitates increased liquidity and execution opportunities to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange also does not believe that its proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, as noted above, at least one other competing options exchange
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it will continue to encourage order flow, which provides greater volume and liquidity, benefiting all market participants by providing more
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to its rules to add new subparagraph (i)(4) to Rule 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers) regarding orders designated as “Retail Orders.” The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to add new subparagraph (i)(4) to Rule 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers) to add a description of a Retail Order modifier.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31 to add new subparagraph (i)(4) to provide for ETP Holders
To define “Retail Orders,” the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers) to add a new subsection (i)(4), titled “Retail Modifier” to establish requirements for Retail Orders on the Exchange. These requirements are based on the requirements to enter orders with “retail” modifiers for purposes of rates available for such orders on the Exchange's affiliates, NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”), New York Stock Exchange, LLC (“NYSE”), and NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”).
Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(4)(A) would define “Retail Order” as an agency order or a riskless principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by an ETP Holder, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology. This proposed rule is based on NYSE American Rule 7.31E(i)(4)(A) without any differences.
Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(4)(B) would specify that in order for an ETP Holder to access the proposed Retail Order pricing, the ETP Holder would be required to designate an order as a Retail Order in the form and/or manner prescribed by the Exchange. This proposed rule is based on NYSE American Rule 7.31E(i)(4)(B) without any differences.
Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(4)(C) would specify that in order to submit a Retail Order, an ETP Holder must submit an attestation, in a form prescribed by the Exchange, that substantially all orders designated as “Retail Orders” would meet the requirements set out in the definition above. This proposed rule is based on NYSE American Rule 7.31E(i)(4)(C) without any differences.
Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(4)(D) would specify that an ETP Holder must have written policies and procedures reasonably designed to assure that it would only designate orders as “Retail Orders” if all requirements of a Retail Order are met. Such written policies and procedures must require the ETP Holder to (i) exercise due diligence before entering a Retail Order to assure that entry as a Retail Order is in compliance with the requirements specified by the Exchange, and (ii) monitor whether orders entered as Retail Orders meet the applicable requirements. If an ETP Holder represents Retail Orders from another broker-dealer customer, the ETP Holder's supervisory procedures must be reasonably designed to assure that the orders it receives from such broker-dealer customer that it designates as Retail Orders meet the definition of a Retail Order. The ETP Holder must (i) obtain an annual written representation, in a form acceptable to the Exchange, from each broker-dealer customer that sends it orders to be designated as Retail Orders that entry of such orders as Retail Orders would be in compliance with the requirements specified by the Exchange, and (ii) monitor whether its broker-dealer customer's Retail Order flow continues to meet the applicable requirements. This proposed rule is based on NYSE American Rule 7.31E(i)(4)(D) without any differences.
Proposed Rule 7.31(i)(4)(E) would specify that an ETP Holder that fails to abide by the requirements specified in paragraphs (i)(4)(A)-(D) of Rule 7.31 would not be eligible for the Retail Order rates for orders it designates as “Retail Orders.” This proposed rule is based on NYSE American Rule 7.31E(i)(4)(E) without any differences.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to Rule 7.31(i) to add a Retail Modifier would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed requirements are based on existing requirements for orders designated as “retail” on NYSE American, NYSE, and NYSE Arca for purposes of fees and credits on those exchanges, and therefore are not novel. In addition, the proposed designation, attestation, and written policies and procedures are also based on existing procedures for similarly-defined orders on NYSE American, NYSE, and NYSE Arca, and therefore are not novel.
The Exchange further believes that adding the proposed Retail Modifier to its rules in advance of amending its Fee Schedule to add rates for Retail Orders would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because by adding the Retail Modifier now, the Exchange will have more flexibility in the future to amend its Fee Schedule to add rates specific to Retail Orders pursuant to a proposed rule change filed under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The proposed retail modifier for purposes of providing different rates for “Retail Orders” is also based in part on the availability of such modifiers on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), which both offer pricing for orders designated as “retail” under their respective rules, even in the absence of a retail price improvement program. For example, Nasdaq defines the term “Designated Retail Order” on its Price List as:
[A]n agency or riskless principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03 and that originates from a natural person and is submitted to Nasdaq by a member that designates it pursuant to this section, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate
Nasdaq does not have a corresponding definition of “Designated Retail Order” in its trading rules.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and; (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.4-O to permit Monday and Wednesday expirations for options listed pursuant to the Short Term Options Series Program on the Invesco QQQ Trust
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend Rule 6.4-O, Series of Options Open for Trading, to permit Monday and Wednesday expirations for options listed pursuant to the Short Term Options Series Program (“Program”) on QQQ.
A Short Term Options Series is a series in an option class that is approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday that is a business day and that expires on the Monday, Wednesday or Friday of the next business week, or, in the case of a series that is listed on a Friday and expires on a Monday, is listed one business week and one business day prior to that expiration.
As proposed, with respect to Monday QQQ Expirations within Rule 6.4-O Commentary .07, the Exchange may open for trading on any Friday or Monday that is a business day series of options on QQQ to expire on any Monday of the month that is a business day and is not a Monday in which Quarterly Options Series on the same class expire (“Monday QQQ Expirations”), provided that Monday QQQ Expirations that are listed on a Friday must be listed at least one business week and one business day prior to the expiration. The Exchange may list up to five consecutive Monday QQQ Expirations at one time; the Exchange may have no more than a total of five Monday QQQ Expirations.
As proposed, with respect to Wednesday QQQ Expirations within Rule 6.4-O Commentary .07, the Exchange may open for trading on any Tuesday or Wednesday that is a business day series of options on QQQ to expire on any Wednesday of the month that is a business day and is not a Wednesday in which Quarterly Options Series on the same class expire (“Wednesday QQQ Expirations”). The Exchange may list up to five consecutive Wednesday QQQ Expirations at one time; the Exchange may have no more than a total of five Wednesday QQQ Expirations.
The interval between strike prices for the proposed Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations will be the same as those for the current Short Term Option Series for Wednesday and Friday expirations applicable to the Program.
Pursuant to Rule 6.1-O,
Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the Program, the Exchange is limited to opening thirty (30) series for each expiration date for the specific class.
Finally, the Exchange is amending Rule 6.4-O Commentary .07(a), which addresses the listing of Short Term Options Series that expire in the same week as monthly or quarterly options series. Currently, that rule states that no Short Term Option Series may expire in the same week in which monthly option series on the same class expire (with the exception of Monday and Wednesday SPY Expirations) or, in the case of Quarterly Options Series, on an expiration that coincides with an expiration of Quarterly Options Series on the same class.
The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of P.M.-settled Monday and Wednesday QQQ expirations. The Exchange has the necessary capacity and surveillance programs in place to support and properly monitor trading in the proposed Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations. The Exchange currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire Monday and Wednesday for SPY and has not experienced any market disruptions nor issues with capacity. The Exchange currently has surveillance programs in place to support and properly monitor trading in Short Term Option Series that expire Monday and Wednesday for SPY.
Similar to SPY, the introduction of Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and continue the reduction of the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange believes that Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations will allow market participants to purchase QQQ based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed rule change is intended to provide the investing public and other market participants more flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions in QQQ options, thus allowing them to better manage their risk exposure.
In particular, the Exchange believes the Program has been successful to date and that Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations should simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risk against market movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur throughout the month in the same way that the Program has expanded the landscape of hedging. Similarly, the Exchange believes Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and will provide customers with the ability to tailor their investment objectives more effectively. The Exchange currently lists Monday and Wednesday SPY Expirations.
With the exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled to expire on a holiday, there are no material differences in the treatment of Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations for Short Term Option Series. The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to treat Monday expiration series that expire on a holiday differently than Wednesday or Friday expiration series, since the proposed treatment for Monday expiration series will result in an expiration date that is closer in time to the scheduled expiration date of the series, and therefore may be more representative of anticipated market conditions. Monday SPY expirations are currently treated in this manner.
Given the similarities between Monday and Wednesday SPY Expirations and the proposed Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations, the Exchange believes that applying the provisions in NYSE Arca Rule 6.4-O Commentary .07 that currently apply to Monday and Wednesday SPY
The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in Monday and Wednesday expirations, including Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations, in the same way that it monitors trading in the current Short Term Option Series and trading in Monday and Wednesday SPY Expirations. The Exchange also represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new options series. Finally, the Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that having Monday and Wednesday QQQ Expirations is not a novel proposal, as Monday and Wednesday SPY Expirations are currently listed on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition, as all market participants will be treated in the same manner under this proposal. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition, as nothing prevents the other options exchanges from proposing similar rules to list and trade Short-Term Option Series with Monday and Wednesday expirations.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 29, 2021.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
86 FR 38391, July 20, 2021.
Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On March 31, 2021, the Operating Committee for Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC (“CAT LLC” or the “Company”), on behalf of the following parties to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”):
This order institutes proceedings, under Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,
On July 11, 2012, the Commission adopted Rule 613 of Regulation NMS, which required the SROs to submit a national market system (“NMS”) plan to create, implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail that would capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS securities.
The Plan specified that, in establishing the funding of the Company, the Operating Committee shall establish “a tiered fee structure in which the fees charged to: (1) CAT Reporters
On May 15, 2020, the Commission adopted amendments to the CAT NMS Plan designed to increase the Participants' financial accountability for the timely completion of the CAT (“Financial Accountability Amendments”).
On April 21, 2021, the Nasdaq and Cboe Participants
Under the Proposed Amendment, the Operating Committee proposes to revise certain aspects of the funding model set forth in Article XI of the CAT NMS Plan (the “Original Funding Model”). The Original Funding Model uses a bifurcated funding approach in which costs associated with building and operating the CAT would be borne by (1) Industry Members (other than ATSs that execute transactions in Eligible Securities
The Operating Committee also proposes to adopt a fee schedule to establish the CAT fees applicable to Participants based on the Proposed Funding Model. The Participant Fee Schedule would establish the allocation percentages and other variables for calculating the CAT fees under the Proposed Funding Model.
The Original Funding Model employs a bifurcated approach in which costs associated with building and operating the CAT would be borne by (1) Participants and Industry Members that are Execution Venue ATSs for Eligible Securities through fees based on market share, and (2) Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) through fees based on message traffic. Under the Proposed Funding Model, the concept of an Execution Venue would be eliminated, and CAT costs would be divided between Participants as a group and Industry Members as a group; Execution Venue ATSs would be treated like other Industry Members, instead of like Participants.
The Original Funding Model includes reported share volume in OTC Equity Securities in the calculation of market share for national securities associations.
The Original Funding Model requires the use of tiered fees for Industry Members and Participants.
Section 11.2(c) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the Operating Committee to establish a fee structure in which the fees charged to CAT Reporters with the most CAT-related activity (measured by market share and/or message traffic, as applicable) are generally comparable. Section 11.2(c) explains that for comparability purposes, the tiered fee structure takes into consideration affiliations between or among CAT Reporters. The Operating Committee proposes to remove this requirement from Section 11.2(c) of the Plan. According to the Operating Committee, the comparability provision was used to determine tiers under the Original Funding Model; however, since the Operating Committee proposes to remove fee tiering from the Proposed Funding Model,
The Operating Committee proposes to amend Sections 11.3(a) and (b) of the Plan to eliminate references to “fixed fees” to be paid by Industry Members and Participants from the CAT NMS Plan.
The Operating Committee proposes to amend Section 11.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan to provide that each Industry Member would be subject to a base minimum Industry Member CAT fee (“Minimum Industry Member CAT Fee”) and a maximum Industry Member CAT fee (“Maximum Industry Member CAT Fee”).
The Operating Committee also states that the Maximum Industry Member CAT Fee would be the fee calculated based on 8% of the total message traffic for Industry Members.
The Operating Committee proposes to amend Section 11.3(a) of the CAT NMS Plan to impose a minimum fee to be payable by each Participant (“Minimum Participant Fee”) in addition to fees based on market share. The Operating Committee explains that this fee would “ensure that all Participants provide a meaningful contribution to the funding of the CAT”
The Operating Committee proposes to amend Section 11.3(a)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan to provide that any Participant that is a national securities association shall pay a maximum fee established by the Operating Committee (“Maximum Equities Participant Fee”) instead of the higher fee calculated based on such Participant's market share. If a Participant's fee is limited to such maximum fee, any excess amount which the Participant otherwise would have paid as a fee above such maximum amount will be re-allocated among all Equities Participants, including any Equities Participants that are subject to the maximum fee, in accordance with their market share.
The Operating Committee proposes to amend Section 11.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan to add market maker message traffic discounts to the Proposed Funding Model. Under the Original Funding Model, there is no distinction between the treatment of message traffic for market maker Industry Members and message traffic for non-market maker Industry Members for purposes of calculating Industry Member CAT fees. The Operating Committee explains that the proposed discounts are intended to address concerns raised previously that treating market maker message traffic the same as other message traffic for purposes of calculating Industry Member CAT fees would disproportionately impact market makers because of their continuous quoting obligations and result in an undue or inappropriate burden on competition or a reduction in liquidity and market quality.
In the Participants' description of the Proposed Amendment, the Operating Committee states that Options Market Maker message traffic would be discounted based on the trade-to-quote ratio for options when calculating the message traffic of an Industry Member that is an Options Market Maker,
Under the Proposed Funding Model, when calculating the message traffic of an Industry Member that is an equity market maker in NMS Stocks (“Equity Market Maker”), its discounted market making message traffic count would be calculated by multiplying its market making message traffic in NMS Stocks by the NMS Stock trade-to-quote ratio.
Under the Proposed Funding Model, the CAT fees for the relevant period would be designed to cover the total CAT costs associated with developing, implementing and operating the CAT for the relevant period (“Total CAT Costs”).
The total budgeted costs for the CAT for the relevant year shall be the total CAT costs set forth in the annual operating budget approved by the Operating Committee pursuant to Section 11.1(a) of the CAT NMS Plan. The total budgeted costs for the CAT for the relevant year may be adjusted on a quarterly basis as the Operating Committee reasonably deems appropriate for the prudent operation of the Company. To the extent that the Operating Committee adjusts the total budgeted costs for the CAT for the relevant year during its quarterly budget review, the adjusted budgeted costs for the CAT will be used in calculating the remaining CAT fees for that year.
The Operating Committee explains that using Total CAT Costs budgeted for the year, rather than already incurred CAT costs, would allow the Company to collect fees before bills become payable.
The Proposed Funding Model contemplates allocating CAT costs between Participants and Industry Members to permit the calculation of CAT fees based on market share for Participants and based on message traffic for Industry Members.
In proposing a 75%-25% allocation between Industry Members and Participants, the Operating Committee states that it considered a variety of different potential allocations between Industry Members and Participants.
As described above, the Proposed Funding Model provides that the Operating Committee shall establish a minimum fee to be payable by each Participant in addition to a fee based on market share. In the proposed Participant Fee Schedule, the Operating Committee establishes 0.75% of the Participant Allocation as the Minimum Participant Fee
The proposed Participant Fee Schedule provides that the Equities Participant Allocation would be 60% of the Adjusted Participant Allocation and the Options Participant Allocation would be 40% of the Adjusted Participant Allocation.
Each Participant would pay a quarterly Participant CAT fee to recover the costs of the CAT going forward. For Equities Participants, the quarterly Participant CAT Fee would be calculated by multiplying the Equities Participant Allocation by each Equities Participant's percentage of total market share of NMS Stocks for all Equities Participants for the prior quarter, subject to the Maximum Equities Participant Fee (if applicable), and in addition to the Minimum Participant Fee.
The quarterly Participant CAT fee would be a quarterly CAT fee based on market share from the prior quarter and the allocation of Total CAT Costs under the Proposed Funding Model for the relevant year.
Under the Proposed Funding Model, FINRA, as a national securities association, would be subject to the Maximum Equities Participant Fee as set by the Operating Committee. The Operating Committee proposes to establish in the Participant Fee Schedule a Maximum Equities Participant Fee equal to the greater of (x) 20% of the Equities Participant Allocation or (y) the highest CAT fee required to be paid by any other Equities Participant plus 5% of such highest CAT fee.
The Participants' description of the Proposed Amendment states that the Operating Committee proposes to establish a system for the collection of CAT fees pursuant to Section 11.4 of the CAT NMS Plan. The Company will provide each Participant with an invoice setting forth the quarterly Participant CAT fee for each payment period. Each Participant will pay its CAT fees to the Company via the centralized system for the collection of CAT fees.
The Commission received 19 comment letters on the Proposed Amendment.
Several commenters question the scope of the CAT costs proposed to be recovered from Industry Members.
In response to comments objecting to the imposition of CAT costs on Industry Members,
Six commenters object to the proposed imposition of historical costs on Industry Members.
In response to comments questioning the scope of the costs to be recovered from Industry Members,
Several commenters express concern that the proposal was developed without the involvement of Industry Members.
In response to comments noting a lack of industry participation in the development of the Proposed Funding Model,
Six commenters believe that the Participants have conflicts of interest that are reflected in the cost allocation proposed for the Participants and Industry Members.
In response to the comments regarding potential conflicts of interests behind the proposed cost allocation for Participants and Industry Members,
Several commenters express concern that the Proposed Funding Model lacks sufficient transparency into the operating budget as well as the costs proposed to be recovered by the CAT fees.
Commenters request detailed information on the historical costs and the operating budget.
Another commenter notes that the Proposed Amendment lacks detail on the historical CAT assessment costs and requests the Participants to provide the opportunity to review the costs incurred before the CAT NMS Plan was approved, noting that Industry Members should be permitted “to refute the validity of any cost and its allocation to Industry Members.”
Commenters also request a breakdown of the estimated CAT costs and operating budget.
Several commenters believe the lack of transparency prevents Industry Members from estimating their costs and fees.
In response to comments requesting additional transparency into CAT costs,
Several commenters believe the Proposed Amendment does not properly explain increases in historical and annual costs in excess of prior estimates.
In response to comments questioning the increases in CAT costs from prior estimates,
Some commenters believe that the Proposed Funding Model lacks the transparency needed to incentivize the Participants to manage CAT costs efficiently.
In response to comments urging more transparency to ensure the Participants manage CAT Costs efficiently,
Finally, one commenter states that the Proposed Amendment needs to explain what would happen if actual CAT operating costs exceed the budget and what would happen if the CAT becomes over-budget. The commenter believes that a revised amendment should provide further details on the CAT budget and potential budget surpluses.
Many commenters raise concerns about the proposed allocation of costs between Industry Members and Participants.
One commenter believes the cost allocation is inequitable and an undue burden on Industry Members.
One commenter approves the proposed elimination of tiering, but expresses concern at the allocation, stating that allocating set percentages of total costs to one group over another is the wrong approach.
One commenter notes that the Proposed Funding Model does not explain how the 75% allocation to Industry Members relates to overall CAT costs resulting from Industry Member reporting and therefore may not be supported by Section 11.2(a) and Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
One commenter believes the proposed allocation is arbitrary because the Participants override the allocation with adjusted allocations, such as the proposed market maker discounts, the Minimum Industry Member CAT Fee and the Maximum Industry Member CAT Fee, and the treatment of OTC Equity Security share volume.
Several commenters believe the proposed cost allocation between Industry Members and Participants ignores the time investment and costs already incurred by Industry Members to report to the CAT.
One commenter states that the Proposed Funding Model treats affiliated Participants differently than affiliated Industry Members without explaining how this inconsistency is consistent with the Exchange Act.
One commenter questions why equities and options message traffic is combined for Industry Member cost allocation purposes, unlike the Participant Allocation where 60% of the Total CAT Costs would be allocated to
Four commenters note that, under the proposed allocation, Industry Members must not only cover their allocation of the Total CAT Costs, but they must also fund FINRA, which would owe its own share of Participant CAT fees.
In response to comments questioning the justification for the proposed 75%-25% allocation,
Several commenters state that the Proposed Amendment does not consider whether regulatory fees and fines paid by Industry Members could offset the costs of CAT.
In response to comments suggesting that regulatory fines and cost savings due to the retirement of OATS should be used to decrease CAT costs,
Finally, one commenter argues that the elimination of comparability as a funding principle removes support for the proposed cost allocation.
In response to the comment,
Two commenters argue that the Proposed Amendment failed to justify the proposed 60%-40% allocation of costs between Equities and Options Participants.
In response to the comments,
Several commenters object to the use of message traffic as the basis of Industry Member CAT fees.
One commenter notes that the elimination of comparability as a funding principle removes support for the proposed requirement to base Industry Members CAT fees on message traffic and Participant CAT fees on market share.
Two commenters believe that the Proposed Funding Model needs to examine the impact of options quoting activity on CAT.
In response to comments questioning the use of message traffic as a basis of Industry Member CAT fees,
One commenter suggests that the Reportable Events that will constitute message traffic be defined in the CAT NMS Plan, rather than in the IM Reporting Tech Specs, so that any changes to the Reportable Events that would be defined as message traffic would be subject to the notice and comment process.
Commenters also believe that the use of message traffic as a basis of Industry Member CAT fees could affect market participant behavior with harmful consequences to the markets.
One commenter believes that using message traffic as the basis of Industry Member CAT fees will hurt the provision of liquidity and harm market quality.
One commenter discusses the potential negative impact on ETFs caused by the use of message traffic as the basis for Industry Member CAT fees.
In response to comments questioning the effects of the use of message traffic to calculate fees on the markets,
Several commenters believe that Participants should be assessed fees based on message traffic rather than market share.
One commenter believes that using market share to determine Participant CAT fees “gives a free pass to Plan Participants who generate high levels of message traffic but have very little market share.”
Another commenter, FINRA, believes that requiring market share to be the basis of Participant costs is inconsistent with CAT cost alignment principles
This commenter also objects to the use of market share in determining its CAT fees.
In response to comments questioning the use of market share to calculate Participant fees,
Two commenters object to the Maximum Equities Participant Fee because they believe that the sole Participant subject to the fee—FINRA—would be unfairly afforded preferential treatment.
In response to the comment noting the nature of trading in OTC Equity Securities,
The other commenter believes that the Maximum Equities Participant Fee market share caps and re-allocation are arbitrary and unfairly discriminatory.
One commenter, FINRA, also objects to the Maximum Equities Participant Fee because it is based on the use of market share for calculating FINRA's CAT fees, which FINRA believes is inconsistent with the funding principles of the CAT NMS Plan and ill-suited to FINRA's unique model.
In response to comments received on the Maximum Equities Participant Fee,
One commenter objects to the proposed Minimum Participant Fee as inconsistent with the notion that market share is a fair method of allocation,
In response to the comments on the Minimum Participant Fee,
Several commenters express concern about the Maximum Industry Member CAT Fee.
Another commenter objects to the 8% cap, explaining that the proposal has not fully justified the cap, and that it provides large brokers an unfair advantage by requiring other Industry Members, including their direct competitors, to pay the large brokers' re-allocation of fees in excess of the Maximum Industry Member CAT Fee.
In response to comments on the Maximum Industry Member CAT Fee,
Two commenters object to the Minimum Industry Member CAT Fee.
The other commenter believes the proposal lacks justification for the Minimum Industry CAT Fee, explaining that the fee could increase for firms with little message traffic due to the redistribution of CAT fees in excess of the Maximum Industry Member CAT Fee.
In response to the comments,
Five commenters object to the proposed market maker discounts.
Similarly, another commenter states that 89% of all Industry Member CAT Reportable Events comes from Options Market Makers, but the proposed Options Market Maker discount reduces 99% of the billable events for Options Market Makers, with the result being 94% of Industry Members' share allocated to equities non-market makers.
In response to the comment on the proposal's potential effects on business lines across the industry,
One commenter opposes any market maker discounts, but notes that smaller market makers that do not pay or receive rebates deserve subsidies to encourage their participation.
Two commenters endorse the proposed market maker discounts.
One commenter requests clarification on the proposed market maker discounts, specifying “cost allocation data and projections on market maker vs. non-market maker liquidity providers.”
Several commenters suggest alternatives to the Proposed Funding Model.
Other commenters recommend a funding model administered similar to the Commission's Section 31 fees.
One commenter believes that a 50%-50% cost allocation among Industry Members and Participants would be preferable to the proposed 75%-25% cost allocation,
Another commenter, a national securities exchange, provides a detailed alternative funding model administered similarly to Section 31 fees.
Two commenters believe the national securities exchange's suggested alternative funding model deserves review.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,
Rule 608(b)(2) of Regulation NMS provides that the Commission “shall approve a national market system plan or proposed amendment to an effective
• Whether, consistent with Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, the Participants have demonstrated how the Proposed Amendment is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act;
• Whether the Participants have demonstrated how the Proposed Amendment is consistent with Section 6(b)(4)
• Whether the Participants have demonstrated how the Proposed Amendment is consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
• Whether the Participants have demonstrated how the Proposed Amendment is consistent with Section 6(b)(8)
• Whether the Participants have demonstrated how the Proposed Amendment is consistent with the funding principles of the CAT NMS Plan, which state that the Operating Committee shall seek, among other things, “to create transparent, predictable revenue streams for the Company that are aligned with the anticipated costs to build, operate and administer the CAT and the other costs of the Company,”
• Whether, and if so how, the Proposed Amendment would affect efficiency, competition or capital formation; and
• Whether modifications to the Proposed Amendment, or conditions to its approval, would be necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
As discussed in Section IV., above, the Participants made various arguments in support of the Proposed Amendment and the Commission received comment letters that expressed concerns about the Proposed Amendment, including that the Participants did not provide sufficient information to establish that the Proposed Amendment is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder.
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a NMS plan filing is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the plan participants that filed the NMS plan filing.”
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the Proposed Amendment. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the Proposed Amendment is consistent with Section 11A or any other provision of the Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2)(i) of Regulation NMS,
1. Commenters' views on the proposed inclusion of ATSs as Industry Members for purposes of allocating CAT costs;
2. Commenters' views on the exclusion of reported OTC Equity Securities share volume from the calculation of market share for national securities associations;
3. Commenters' views on the proposed elimination of tiered fees in favor of CAT fees that may vary based on message traffic or market share, as applicable;
4. Commenters' views on the proposed elimination from Section 11.2(c) of the CAT NMS Plan of the requirement that the fees charged to CAT Reporters with the most CAT-related activity be generally comparable;
5. Commenters' views on the proposed Minimum Industry Member CAT Fee and the requirement that all Industry Members pay such fee, even if they have not yet started reporting to the CAT, and any views on whether the Proposed Funding Model has provided sufficient information on the operation of the fee and on whether the Proposed Funding Model has sufficiently explained the operation of the Minimum Industry Member CAT Fee Re-Allocation;
6. Commenters' views on the proposed Maximum Industry Member CAT Fee; any views on whether the Proposed Amendment contains sufficient justification for the 8% cap chosen for the fee; and any views on whether a maximum fee is consistent with the funding principles expressed in the CAT NMS Plan that states that the Operating Committee shall seek, among other things, “to create transparent, predictable revenue streams for the Company that are aligned with the anticipated costs to build, operate and administer the CAT and the other costs of the Company,”
7. Commenters' views on why Industry Member CAT fees should be capped; views on how such a cap would benefit or harm efficiency, competition, and capital formation; and any views on whether there are other benefits or costs of adopting such an approach;
8. Commenters' views on the proposed Minimum Participant Fee and the Maximum Equities Participant Fee, including views on the calculation of the proposed fees and any views on whether the proposed fees raise any competitive issues among the Participants; and any views on whether the proposed fees are consistent with the funding principles expressed in the CAT NMS Plan, which state that the Operating Committee shall seek, among other things, “to create transparent, predictable revenue streams for the Company that are aligned with the anticipated costs to build, operate and administer the CAT and the other costs of the Company;”
9. Commenters' views on whether FINRA's CAT fee should be capped; any views on how such a cap benefits or harms efficiency, competition, and capital formation; and any views on whether there are other benefits or costs of adopting such an approach;
10. Commenters' views on why Participants should be charged the Minimum Participant Fee; views on how such a minimum would benefit or harm efficiency, competition, and capital formation; and any views on whether there are other benefits or costs of adopting such an approach;
11. Commenters' views on the proposed market maker discounts, any views on the potential impact of the discounts on market participant behavior, including the provision of liquidity; and any views on whether the proposed market maker discounts are consistent with the funding principles expressed in the CAT NMS Plan, which state that the Operating Committee shall seek, among other things, “to create transparent, predictable revenue streams for the Company that are aligned with the anticipated costs to build, operate and administer the CAT and the other costs of the Company,”
12. Commenters' views on how market-making activity should be defined for purposes of the proposed market maker discounts; views on whether there is activity included in the definition of market making that should not be included for purposes of allocation of CAT fees; and any views on whether such a discount should apply to market-making activities in all types of securities without regard to security characteristics;
13. Commenters' views on whether other Industry Members (including those that do not transact in options) would subsidize the activity of Options Market Makers under the proposal; any views on whether Section 6.4(d)(iii)
1. Commenters' views on the determination to allocate 75% of the Total CAT Costs to Industry Members and 25% of the Total CAT Costs to Participants; and any views on whether this proposed allocation is consistent with the funding principles expressed in the CAT NMS Plan, which state that the Operating Committee shall seek, among other things, “to establish an allocation of the Company's related costs among Participants and Industry Members that is consistent with the Exchange Act taking into account . . . distinctions in the securities trading operations of Participants and Industry Members and their relative impact upon the Company resources and operations,”
2. Commenters' views on the rationale provided that the proposed 75%-25% allocation ensures that Industry Members with the most message traffic pay comparable fees to Participant complexes with the most market share, considering the proposed deletion from Section 11.2(c) of the CAT NMS Plan of the requirement that the fees charged to CAT Reporters with the most CAT-related activity be generally comparable;
3. Commenters' views on whether allocating Participant fees by market share while allocating Industry Member fees by message traffic, when combined with the proposed 75%-25% split between Participants and Industry Member aggregate fees, introduces frictions (such as effectively double counting the message traffic sent and received by Industry Members, into the CAT fee model due to FINRA's allocation of fees from trade volume reported to trade reporting facilities); views on how frictions would result; any views on how this would benefit or harm efficiency, competition, and capital formation; any views on whether there are other benefits or costs of adopting such an approach; and any views on whether capping FINRA's contribution to CAT fees as described in the Participants' proposal mitigate any benefits or costs and to what extent;
4. Commenters' views on potential alternative allocations of Total CAT Costs to Industry Members and Participants, including the allocations considered, but rejected, by the Participants, and the alternative allocations suggested by commenters as discussed in this order;
5. Commenters' views on how fees would be passed on to Industry Members and investors if all CAT costs were allocated to Participants; views on how this outcome would be different than under the Participants' proposal; views on whether such an approach would benefit or harm efficiency, competition, and capital formation; and any views on whether there are other benefits or costs of adopting such an approach;
6. Commenters' views on whether Industry Members have sufficient information to estimate and budget for their expected allocation of CAT fees each quarter; if not, any views on what additional information would Industry Members need to develop an estimate of these fees;
7. Commenters' views on whether a Section 31 fee-like cost allocation framework (
8. Commenters' views on the calculation of the Participant Allocation and the Adjusted Participant Allocation;
9. Commenters' views on the determination to allocate 60% of the Adjusted Participant Allocation to Equities Participants and 40% to Options Participants, including views on whether the proposed allocation is consistent with the funding principles expressed in the CAT NMS Plan that state that the Operating Committee shall seek, among other things, “to establish an allocation of the Company's related costs among Participants and Industry Members that is consistent with the Exchange Act taking into account . . . distinctions in the securities trading operations of Participants and Industry Members and their relative impact upon the Company resources and operations,”
10. Commenters' views on an alternative approach that would split costs between Participants and Industry Members by proportion of aggregate message traffic, then allocate the Participants' portion of fees across Participants by market share, with or without the proposed 60%-40% split between Equities and Options Participants; any views on whether this would benefit or harm efficiency, competition and capital formation when compared to the Participants' proposal; and any views on whether there are other benefits or costs of adopting such an approach;
11. Commenters' views on whether elements of the Participants' proposal entail cross-subsidization of activities (for example: Allocating 60% of Participants' fees to Equities Participants and 40% to Options Participants is unlikely to reflect these groups' relative message traffic; and discounting fees associated with message traffic for market-making activities based on quote/trade ratios reduces fees paid by Industry Members who are market makers); any views on how these cross-subsidizations benefit or harm efficiency, competition, and capital formation; and any views on whether there are other benefits or costs of adopting such an approach;
12. Commenters' views on whether the lack of Industry Member participation on the Operating Committee prevents the Participants from arriving at an equitable allocation of CAT fees between Participants and Industry Members, and across members of those groups;
13. Commenters' views on how any inherent conflicts of interest may be addressed in the proposal;
14. Commenters' views on how allowing the Operating Committee to determine by vote how Participant fees are allocated across Participants would benefit or harm efficiency, competition, and capital formation, assuming that some proportion of CAT fees are to be allocated to Participants as a group; and any views on whether there are other benefits or costs of adopting such an approach;
15. Commenters' views on the proposed quarterly Participant CAT fee, including views on its calculation; any views on whether the proposed fee raises any competitive issues; and any views on whether the proposed fee is consistent with the funding principles expressed in the CAT NMS Plan, which state that the Operating Committee shall seek, among other things, “to create transparent, predictable revenue streams for the Company that are aligned with the anticipated costs to build, operate and administer the CAT and the other
16. Commenters' views on the decision to use total budgeted costs for the CAT for the relevant year as the Total CAT Costs for calculating fees for Participants and Industry Members, rather than costs already incurred; views on the statement that the total budgeted costs for the CAT may be adjusted on a quarterly basis by the Operating Committee; and views on the treatment of any surpluses.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposals should be approved or disapproved by August 16, 2021. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by August 30, 2021. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Georgia dated 07/20/2021.
Issued on 07/20/2021.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17041 C and for economic injury is 17042 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Georgia.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before August 16, 2021.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2021-0321 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Tiffany Jackson (202-267-3796), Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA requests public comment on an application for exemption from EROAD Inc. (EROAD) to allow its Dashcam system, which is equipped with cameras, to be mounted lower in the windshield on commercial motor vehicles than is currently permitted.
Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2021-0098 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. José R. Cestero, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, (202) 366-5541, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Dockets Operations at (202) 366-9826.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA 2021-0098), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory processes, in accordance with statute 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6)(A). DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The FMCSRs require devices meeting the definition of “vehicle safety technology” to be mounted (1) not more than 4 inches below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, or (2) not more than 7 inches above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. EROAD has applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) to allow its Dashcam system, which is equipped with camera(s) and safety technologies, to be mounted lower in the windshield than is currently permitted. A copy of the exemption application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on EROAD's application for an exemption. All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on June 29, 2021, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 236.566,
UP seeks relief from the requirements of 49 CFR 236.566 to operate locomotives not equipped with automatic train control (ATC) in two locations: The Omaha Subdivision between control point (CP) B328 and CP B349 and the Blair Subdivision between CP B328 and mile post (MP) 328.3. UP states that trains that pass through these locations otherwise operate on non-ATC territory, and to comply with § 236.566 in these two locations, new locomotives with the correct signal equipment would need to be brought onto trains passing through. UP further states that this request would not have an adverse effect on safety, as the use of wayside signals governs movement in the subject locations.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Communications received by September 9, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its
Issued in Washington, DC.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning Annual Letters—Certificates of Authority (A) and Admitted Reinsurer (B).
Written comments should be received on or before September 24, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for additional information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, Room #4006-A, P.O. Box 1328, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Annual Summary and Transmittal of U.S. Information Returns.
Written comments should be received on or before September 24, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Kinna Brewington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, at (202) 317-5753, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Special Valuation Rules.
Written comments should be received on or before September 24, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Kinna Brewington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, at (202)317-5753, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice; correction.
The Internal Revenue Service published a document in the
Written comments should be received on or before September 24, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Kinna Brewington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Limitation on Business Losses.
Written comments should be received on or before September 24, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Kinna Brewington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, at (202) 317-5753, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork
Comments should be received on or before August 25, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Molly Stasko by emailing