Agricultural Research Service
Food and Nutrition Service
National Agricultural Library
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Copyright Royalty Board
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Interim final rule; request for comments.
This interim final rule delays from September 24, 2021, until September 24, 2022, the implementation date of certain provisions of the final rule entitled, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): 2008 Farm Bill Provisions on Clarification of Split Issuance; Accrual of Benefits and Definition Changes” (“the Final Rule”), which was published in the
Comments may be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
Shanta Swezy at the address above or (703) 305-2238,
The final rule, in part, amended SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 274.2(h) and 274.2(i)(1)-(3) to implement provisions of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-234) (2008 Farm Bill) and the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334) (2018 Farm Bill) regarding storage of benefits off-line and permanent expungement of unused benefits. Due to the extenuating circumstances of COVID-19, State agencies have been focusing efforts on the programming necessary for the 15 percent Thrifty Food Plan increase authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L 116-133), Pandemic EBT (P-EBT) authorized by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA, Pub. L. 116-127), and Emergency Allotments authorized by FFCRA, which have been essential to providing households additional support during the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, the September 24, 2021 implementation date poses administrative and management information system challenges for State agencies, and efforts to meet it would divert resources from other, more pressing programs and the nutrition assistance that they provide at this critical time. The new implementation date of September 24, 2022, as established by this interim final rule, is intended to result in more effective and efficient implementation of the new requirements for offline storage and expungement, and enable State agencies to better manage any cost adjustments arising from the changes.
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and comment are not required prior to the issuance of a rule if an agency, for good cause, finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). USDA recognizes that courts have held that the good cause exception to notice and comment rulemaking is to be narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced.
Following these principles, the Department finds for good cause that notice and public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest for this rule. Due to the extenuating circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, State agencies have intently been working to meet multiple essential pandemic-related requirements. This has limited their ability to implement the final rule, necessitating an implementation date change for certain provisions of the final rule. A notice and public comment period would be impracticable because it would consume time before certainty about the implementation date could be achieved, when State agencies need to know immediately whether the September 24, 2021 implementation date still stands, as it is fast approaching. During a notice and comment period, States would face challenges regarding how best to use their resources. States likely would divert resources from other pandemic-related requirements to ensure they can meet an implementation date that might, after the notice and comment period, not be sustained. Accordingly, the purpose of delaying the implementation date—averting the States' diversion of resources—would be impeded by waiting until after a notice and comment period to determine if the implementation date would be delayed. In addition, being informed of the implementation date change is critical to State agency planning and allocation of resources, and having to divide those
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Discontinuation of rulemaking activity.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is discontinuing a rulemaking activity that would have amended the NRC's regulations to add a new part to the existing regulatory framework specific to nuclear spent fuel reprocessing facilities. The purpose of this action is to inform members of the public that this rulemaking activity is being discontinued and to provide a brief discussion of the NRC's decision. This rulemaking activity will no longer be reported in the NRC's portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda).
As of July 29, 2021 the rulemaking activity discussed in this document is discontinued.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0016 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:
•
•
•
Tom Boyce, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-7335; email:
Industry interest was the primary impetus for the NRC to update the regulatory framework for reprocessing light-water reactor spent fuel. In Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)—SECY-13-0093, “Staff Requirements—SECY-13-0093—Reprocessing Regulatory Framework—Status and Next Steps,” the Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to develop a reprocessing-specific rule. It directed the staff's “continued development of the regulatory framework should be limited in scope—for the time being—to the resolution of Gap 5, `Safety and Risk Assessment Methodologies and Considerations for a Reprocessing Facility.' ” Gap 5 focused on the development of analytical methods for the quantitative assessment of risks associated with reprocessing facility accidents to inform the basis for the development of regulatory requirements and regulatory guidance.
From 2013 to 2016 the staff focused its efforts on assessing the quantitative risk associated with reprocessing facility accidents (
To inform its decision making, the NRC reached out to stakeholders to determine the degree of stakeholder interest in constructing, operating, and licensing a spent fuel reprocessing facility. Specifically, the NRC held a Category 3 public meeting on March 4, 2020; participating stakeholders included the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), industry representatives, environmental groups, and private citizens. The NEI and industry representatives voiced their support for continuing the rulemaking primarily on the basis of a need for a clear and stable regulatory framework for reprocessing and to support advanced reactor licensing. However, no industry stakeholders indicated that they plan to submit an application to the NRC for a reprocessing facility in the foreseeable future. Other stakeholders, such as UCS and members of the public, indicated they do not support the continuation of the rulemaking because of proliferation and other concerns.
In May 2020, after the public meeting, the NEI and the American Nuclear Society (ANS) sent letters to the NRC with further feedback on the need for rulemaking. The NEI stated that developers with advanced reactor designs that may eventually source their fuel from the spent fuel of other reactors are generally not planning to do so in the near future. The NEI encouraged the NRC to assess the technologies for advanced reactors before making any decisions on the reprocessing rulemaking. It also suggested that the NRC should not charge existing facilities with fees for work on a reprocessing rule. ANS encouraged the NRC to continue with the rulemaking and stated that the lack of an efficient, technically robust, and technology-inclusive regulatory foundation for reprocessing and recycling is a barrier to innovation in advanced reactor designs.
The NRC also engaged organizations and vendors in the advanced reactor community to assess their interest in and specific needs for reprocessing, such as the use of fuel recovered from the existing spent fuel feedstock. Based on these interactions, the NRC concluded that, in addition to using fresh fuel obtained from enrichment and fabrication, some advanced reactor designs have the capability to eventually source their fuel from the spent fuel of other reactors, but there
The NRC also engaged staff from the DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy to exchange information regarding developments in reprocessing efforts and technologies, particularly in reprocessing of spent fuel for advanced reactors. The DOE efforts in the area of reprocessing are aimed at providing a limited near-term supply of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) for initial advanced reactor designs. These DOE reprocessing initiatives do not require NRC licensing. The NRC is not aware of any other DOE initiatives to reprocess light water reactor spent fuel or potential commercial efforts to reprocess spent HALEU fuel for reuse in advanced reactors.
In the event that the NRC receives an application for a commercial reprocessing facility, the NRC could use its existing regulatory framework under part 50 of title 10 of the
The NRC's decision to discontinue this rulemaking is based on the estimated costs to conduct the rulemaking and the limited interest expressed or expected from industry to submit an application for any type of facility involving reprocessing technologies in the near-term. The staff estimates that $2.5 million would be needed to complete a regulatory basis, develop and issue guidance, and develop a proposed and final rule. Therefore, while a rule would provide additional clarity for potential applicants, the NRC concludes that it is not warranted at this time.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons in the ADAMS Public Documents collection.
The NRC is no longer pursuing rulemaking for spent fuel reprocessing facilities for the reasons discussed in this document. In the next edition of the Unified Agenda, the NRC will update the entry for this rulemaking activity and reference this document to indicate that the rulemaking activity is no longer being pursued. This rulemaking activity will appear in the completed actions section of that edition of the Unified Agenda but will not appear in future editions. If the NRC decides to pursue similar or related rulemaking activities in the future, it will inform the public through new rulemaking entries in the Unified Agenda.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
On October 5, 2020, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) to establish a test procedure and an accompanying labeling requirement for dedicated purpose pool pump (“DPPP”) motors. This final rule establishes a test procedure for DPPP motors. Specifically, the final rule incorporates by reference an industry standard pertaining to DPPP definitions; and requires the use of an industry testing standard for testing the energy efficiency of DPPP motors. This final rule does not establish a labeling requirement and DOE intends to address any such labeling and/or energy conservation standards requirement in a separate notification.
The effective date of this rule is September 27, 2021. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 27, 2021.
The docket, which includes
A link to the docket web page can be found at
For further information on how to review the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
DOE incorporates by reference the following industry standards into 10 CFR part 431:
CSA C747-09 (Reaffirmed 2014), “Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors,” as revised through August 2016, including Update No. 1.
Copies of CSA C747-09, can be obtained from the Canadian Standards Association (“CSA”), Sales Department, 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-463-6727, or
UL 1004-10:2020, “Standard for Safety for Pool Pump Motors”, First Edition, Dated February 28, 2020.
Copies of UL 1004-10:2020, Edition 1, can be obtained from Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”), 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, Illinois, 60062, (841) 272-8800 or
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.N.
Electric motors are included in the list of “covered equipment” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards, test procedures, and labeling requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6311)(1)(A)). Electric motors include dedicated-purpose pool pump motors (“DPPP motors” or “pool pump motors”), the subject of this rulemaking.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297)
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA outlines the criteria and procedures DOE must follow in prescribing test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedure prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) Before issuing a final test procedure, the Secretary shall publish the proposed test procedure in the
When the Secretary has issued a test procedure under section 6314 of EPCA for a specific class of industrial equipment, the Secretary shall also prescribe a labeling rule for that equipment, subject to certain statutory criteria. (42 U.S.C. 6315(a)) EPCA establishes specific requirements for the labeling of classes of equipment, including electric motors, for which test procedures have been established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(a), (b) and (d)) The labeling rule shall provide that the labeling of any electric motor manufactured after the 12-month period beginning on the date the Secretary prescribes such labeling rules, shall: (1) Indicate the energy efficiency of the motor on the permanent nameplate attached to such motor; (2) prominently display the energy efficiency of the motor in equipment catalogs and other material used to market the equipment; and (3) include such other markings as the Secretary determines necessary solely to facilitate enforcement of the standards established for electric motors under section 6313 of this title. (42 U.S.C. 6315(d)) DOE is publishing this final rule to establish a test procedure for DPPP motors pursuant to its authority under EPCA. As stated, DOE intends to address labeling in a separate notification.
DPPP motors are electric motors, which are defined as machines that convert electrical power into rotational mechanical power. 10 CFR 431.12. DOE has established test procedures, labeling requirements, and energy conservation standards for certain electric motors (10 CFR part 431, subpart B), but those requirements do not apply to DPPP motors subject to the testing requirements of this final rule. DPPP motors subject to the testing requirements of this final rule had not previously been subject to any Federal energy conservation standards, test procedures, or labeling requirements because they do not fall within any of the specific classes of electric motors that are currently regulated by DOE.
As a general matter, DOE notes that 42 U.S.C. 6297, as applied to certain industrial equipment through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), provides that Federal preemption applies to testing and labeling requirements of equipment covered under EPCA.
On January 18, 2017, DOE published a direct final rule establishing energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps (“DPPPs”). 82 FR 5650 (the “January 2017 Direct Final Rule”).
On December 12, 2018, representatives from APSP, NEMA, Nidec Motors, Regal Beloit, and Zodiac met with DOE to reiterate the need for implementation of the Joint Petition. (December 2018
On October 5, 2020, DOE published a NOPR proposing to establish a test procedure and an accompanying labeling requirement for DPPP motors. 85 FR 62816. (“October 2020 NOPR”) Specifically, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference UL Standard 1004-10:2019 “Outline of Investigation for Pool Pump Motors” (“UL 1004-10:2019”) pertaining to DPPP definitions and marking requirements; require the use of CSA C747-09 (R2014), “Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors” (“CSA C747-09”) for testing the energy efficiency of DPPP motors; require the nameplate of a subject DPPP motor (1) to include the full-load efficiency of the motor as determined under the proposed test procedure, and (2) if the DPPP motor is certified to UL-1004-10:2019, to include the statement, “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019”; require that catalogs and marketing materials include the full-load efficiency of the motor; require manufacturers to notify DOE of the subject DPPP motor models in current production (according to the manufacturer's model number) and whether the motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019; and require manufacturers to report to DOE the full-load efficiency of the subject DPPP motor models as determined pursuant to the proposed test procedure. Additionally, if a DPPP motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, DOE proposed to require manufacturers to report the total horsepower and speed configuration of the motor model as provided on the nameplate pursuant to the UL certification. 85 FR 62816, 62820.
DOE received comments in response to the proposed test procedure and labeling requirements in the October 2020 NOPR from the interested parties listed in Table I.1.
In this final rule, DOE is not establishing a labeling requirement. DOE intends to address labeling separately. DOE may also consider energy conservation standards, but would do so separate from this rulemaking. Comments received specific to labeling or regarding energy conservation standards will be addressed, as appropriate to the extent that DOE addresses either of these issues in a separate notice or notices.
The UL 1004-10:2019 standard referenced in the October 2020 NOPR has since been replaced by an American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) approved 2020 version published on February 28, 2020. This version was ANSI-approved on January 23, 2020 and therefore, the latest version of the standard is UL 1004-10:2020 “Standard for Safety for Pool Pump Motors” (edition date February 28, 2020).
In this final rule, DOE is establishing a test procedure for DPPP motors. DOE is not, however, establishing separate labeling requirements or energy conservation standards for the DPPP motors within scope of the test procedure established in this final rule.
In this final rule, DOE establishes subpart Z within 10 CFR part 431, “Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors,” which:
• Specifies that the test procedure applies to “subject DPPP motors” (
• Incorporates by reference UL 1004-10:2020 “Standard for Safety for Pool Pump Motors” (“UL 1004-10:2020”) and reference the definitions of that industry standard; and
• Incorporates by reference CSA C747-09 as the energy efficiency test method for DPPP motors.
The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the
DOE notes that the use of the test procedure would not be required for Federal certification or labeling purposes until such time as DOE were to establish a label requirement or standards for DPPP motors, (
In the October 2020 NOPR, DOE proposed the scope of the test procedure and labeling requirements for DPPP motors to align with the scope of motors used in pool pumps that are subject to the standards and for which DOE has established an energy performance requirement,
The scope of this final rule is that, as proposed in the October 2020 NOPR.
• Polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase power to polyphase power,
• waterfall pump motors,
• rigid electric spa pump motors,
• storable electric spa pump motors,
• integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors, and
• integral sand-filter pool pump motors.
The upper limit of 5 THP approximates the scope of the pool pumps subject to standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f), which has an upper bound of 2.5 hydraulic horsepower (“HHP”).
The exemption for polyphase motors applies to three-phase motors operating on three-phase power supply, which means that these motors are most commonly used in commercial applications and not in residential ones. (Residential applications commonly use single-phase power.) The exemptions for polyphase motors do not exempt three-phase motors operating on a single-phase power supply (by connecting the motor to a drive that converts single-phase power to three-phase power). This exemption ensures that DPPP motors used in pool pumps operating on three-phase power, which are not subject to energy performance requirements under 10 CFR part 431, subpart Y, are exempt from the testing requirements. The remaining five exemptions also exempt DPPP motors used in DPPPs that are not subject to energy performance requirements under 10 CFR part 431, subpart Y.
As discussed, the scope of the test procedure requirements is consistent with the scope of motors used in pool pumps that are subject to standards and for which DOE has set an energy performance requirement, with the scope of UL 1004-10:2020, and with the scope recommendations of the Joint Petitioners.
In the October 2020 NOPR, DOE noted that UL 1004-10:2019 provides definitions for certain pool pump motors relevant to the marking and testing specifications provided in that industry test standard. 85 FR 62816, 62821. DOE noted that while UL 1004-10:2019 was referenced in the Joint Petition, at the time, UL 1004-10:2019 was in the process of being developed and had not been finalized.
In response to the October 2020 NOPR, UL commented that the 2019 version of the UL 1004-10 standard referenced in the NOPR has been replaced by an American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) approved 2020 version published on February 28, 2020, which includes minor editorial changes. UL also provided information on the ANSI standard approval process, which gathered broader feedback and gained consensus from several stakeholder types. (UL, No. 63 at pp. 1-2) The CA IOUs, NEMA and PHTA commented that DOE should incorporate by reference the UL 1004-10:2020 as it is the most recent version. (CA IOUs, No. 64 at p. 5; NEMA and PHTA, No. 57 at p. 4) NEMA and PHTA stated that the definitions in UL 1004-10:2020 were appropriate. NEMA and PHTA further referenced UL comments regarding the development process for UL 1004-10:2020, which NEMA and PHTA described as compliant with section 32 of the Federal Energy
As noted by commenters, UL 1004-10 was ANSI approved on January 23, 2020 and the latest standard is UL 1004-10:2020 “Standard for Safety for Pool Pump Motors” (edition date February 28, 2020). DOE reviewed UL 1004-10:2020 and only identified minor editorial updates compared to UL 1004-10:2019 (
In the October 2020 NOPR, DOE also proposed to rely on the term “manufacturer's model number,” as currently defined in 10 CFR 431.2, as the identifier used by a manufacturer to uniquely identify the group of identical or essentially identical commercial equipment to which a particular unit belongs and which is generally applicable to commercial equipment. 85 FR 62816, 62822. The manufacturer's model number typically appears on equipment nameplates, in equipment catalogs and in other product advertising literature. 10 CFR 431.2. DOE proposed to require manufacturers to report to DOE the models in current production (according to the manufacturer's model number) to which the labeling requirement applies. 85 FR 62816, 62822. DOE requested comment on the proposed use of the term “manufacturer's model number” as defined at 10 CFR 431.2 for the purpose of reporting to DOE.
NEMA and PHTA commented that a manufacturer's unique identifier is needed. NEMA and PHTA recommended that a catalog or model number be used to describe and track subject DPPP motors throughout the rule's requirements, as using the catalog or model number would significantly reduce the need for updates to the DOE database. (NEMA and PHTA, No. 57 at p. 5) DOE did not receive any other comments regarding using the term “manufacturer's model number.”
DOE proposed a definition of “manufacturer's model number” in the context of the proposed reporting required in conjunction with the proposed labeling requirement. As DOE is not adopting a labeling requirement in this final rule, DOE is not adopting the use of the term “manufacturer's model number” in this final rule.
As discussed in section I.A.1, EPCA provides for the establishment of a test procedure for covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) The test procedure must be reasonably designed to produce results reflecting the energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of the covered equipment and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) While EPCA includes specific test procedure-related requirements for electric motors, these requirements are limited to those motors for which standards are applicable. (
In the October 2020 NOPR, consistent with the statutory framework, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference CSA C747-09 (R2014) (published October 1, 2009 and reaffirmed in 2014) as the prescribed test method for evaluating the energy efficiency of the pool pump motors in scope. 85 FR 62816, 62822. This industry-based test procedure, which is already prescribed by DOE as an alternative testing method for evaluating the efficiency of certain small electric motors, can be applied to the range of electric motors that are used in DPPPs—including both single-, two-,multi-, and variable-speed DPPP motors. CSA C747-09 provides for the direct measurement of electrical input power to the motor (or to the drive, as applicable)
In response to the October 2020 NOPR, CA IOUs, NEMA and PHTA commented that CSA C747-09 was the appropriate test standard for DPPP motors and agreed with DOE's proposal to incorporate by reference CSA C747-09. (CA IOUs, No. 64 at p. 5; NEMA and PHTA, No. 57 at p. 5) DOE did not receive any comments opposed to the incorporation by reference of CSA C747-09. Accordingly, in this final rule, DOE incorporates CSA C747-09 by reference at 10 CFR 431.482 as the prescribed test method for evaluating the energy efficiency of the pool pump motors in scope.
In the October 2020 NOPR, DOE noted that section 6.5 of CSA C747-09 specifies that the motor efficiency must be measured at no fewer than five load points
The CA IOUs commented that the full-load efficiency metric would provide consumer utility when combined with the UL certification because it would indicate that the pool pump would be suitable for use or replacement in one of those products. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 55 at p. 62)
NEMA and PHTA commented in support of using the full-load efficiency as determined by CSA C747-09 as the metric. However, NEMA and PHTA noted that CSA C747-09 measures an efficiency that includes the losses of both the motor and the drive (or “control”). As such, NEMA and PHTA recommended that the metric be described as a “motor system efficiency” (
Nidec, however, commented that full-load efficiency is not an appropriate metric for pool pump motors and asserted that it does not capture the energy saving benefits of variable-speed pool pump motors. Nidec commented that the full-load efficiency of a non-UL 1004-10:2020-compliant single-speed pool pump motor measured in accordance with CSA C747-09 could be
The definitions related to DPPP motors incorporated into this final rule includes “variable-speed control DPPP motors.” A DPPP motor, including a variable-speed control DPPP motor, may include a drive which could be physically combined with the motor into a single unit, may include a drive that is physically separate from the DPPP motor, or may not include a drive but the motor is unable to operate without a drive. UL 1004-10:2020 defines a “drive” as “a power converter such as a variable-speed drive or phase converter.” (UL 1004-10:2020 sec. 2.7.) The term “drive” is used to describe the category of speed controls used in variable-speed control DPPP motors and certain two- and multi-speed DPPP motors. (
As stated, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference CSA C747-09 as the prescribed test method for evaluating the energy efficiency of the pool pump motors in scope. 85 FR 62816, 62822-62823. When the motor requires a drive to operate, CSA C747-09 provides that testing includes testing of the drive (see Section 4 of CSA C747-09).
This final rule maintains the “full-load efficiency” as the description of the metric for DPPP motors. DOE is concerned that the term “motor system efficiency,” or some variant, could be misunderstood to mean that the measured value includes the efficiency of components other than the DPPP motor (
To address stakeholder concerns regarding the description of the metric and to reflect the inclusion of the drive, as appropriate, DOE is clarifying that the measured full-load efficiency of the DPPP motor is inclusive of the drive if the DPPP motor is placed into commerce with a drive or is unable to operate without the presence of a drive. In addition, the provisions of section 4 of CSA C747 would still apply, and DOE adds that the measured full-load efficiency of the DPPP motor is also inclusive of the drive if the DPPP motor requires a drive to operate, regardless of whether the DPPP motor is sold with a drive.
On February 14, 2020, DOE finalized its rule, “Procedures for Use in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment” (“the Process Rule”). 85 FR 8626. The Process Rule requires DOE to adopt industry test standards as DOE test procedures for covered products and equipment, unless such methodology would be unduly burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or estimated operating costs of that equipment during a representative use cycle. Section 8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part 430 subpart C; 10 CFR 431.4.
The test procedures for DPPP motors at new subpart Z to part 431 incorporates by reference the test standard CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed in 2014), Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors, without modification. CSA C747-09 is an industry-accepted test procedure that measures the energy efficiency of certain motors, and is applicable to DPPP motors in scope sold in North America. CSA C747-09 includes specifications for the test setup, instrumentation, test conduct, and calculations. DOE also incorporates by reference UL 1004-10:2020, Standard for Safety for Pool Pump Motors, without modification, to reference the definitions published in the same standard. UL 1004-10:2020 establishes definitions and marking requirements for certain pool pump motors and describes methods to verify the information conveyed by those required markings.
EPCA prescribes that, if DOE establishes or amends a test procedure, all representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in accordance with that test procedure, beginning 180 days after publication of such a test procedure final rule in the
If DOE were to establish a new, or amend an existing test procedure, EPCA provides an allowance for individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-day period to begin making representations if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship in meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2)) To receive such an extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how the manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (
DOE received a number of comments involving the effective and compliance dates focusing on the labeling requirements proposed in the October 2020 NOPR. As DOE is not finalizing that aspect of the October 2020 NOPR, DOE will address those comments in a future rulemaking regarding the labeling requirements.
The effective date for the established test procedure will be 30 days after publication of this final rule in the
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined this test procedure rulemaking does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In this final rule, DOE establishes a test procedure for DPPP motors. This final rule does not establish a labeling requirement and DOE intends to address any such labeling requirement in a separate notice. Further, this final rule does not establish energy conservation standards for DPPP motors. Were DOE to consider energy conservation standards for this equipment, it would do so in a separate rulemaking.
DOE reviewed this final rule to establish a test procedure for DPPP motors under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE uses the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are listed by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The SBA considers a business entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. The 2017 NAICS code for DPPP motors is 335312, motor and generator manufacturing. The threshold number for NAICS code 335312 is 1,250 employees.
As previously stated, use of the test procedure would not be required until such time as DOE were to establish a label requirement or energy conservation standards for DPPP motors. (
Therefore, DOE certifies that the impacts of the adopted test procedure requirement in this final rule would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of an FRFA is not warranted. DOE has transmitted the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Manufacturers of electric motors must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including electric motors. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This final rule does not establish any certification or recordkeeping requirements on manufacturers. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), DOE has analyzed this proposed action in accordance with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A5, because it is an interpretive rulemaking that does not change the environmental effect of the rule and meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE has determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA, and does not require an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement.
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.
The modifications to the test procedure for DPPP motors adopted in this final rule incorporates testing methods contained the following commercial standards: UL 1004-10:2020 and CSA C747-09. DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the test standard published by CSA, titled, Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors, CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed in 2014, including Update 1). CSA C747-09 is an industry-accepted test procedure that measures the energy efficiency of certain motors, and is applicable to pool pump motors in scope sold in North America. The test procedure references various sections of CSA C747-09 that address test setup, instrumentation, test conduct, and calculations. CSA C747-09 is readily available at CSA's website at
In this final rule, DOE also incorporates by reference the standard published by UL, titled, Standard For Safety for Pool Pump Motors, UL 1004-10:2020. UL 1004-10:2020 establishes definitions for certain pool pump motors and describes methods to verify the information conveyed by those required markings. UL 1004-10:2020 is readily available at UL's website at
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 19, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
* * * This subpart does not cover electric motors that are “dedicated-purpose pool pump motors,” which are addressed in subpart Z of this part.
* * * This subpart does not cover electric motors that are “dedicated-purpose pool pump motors,” which are addressed in subpart Z of this part.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1) CSA C747-09 (Reaffirmed 2014) (“CSA C747-09”), “Energy efficiency test method for small motors” as revised through August 2016, including Update No. 1; IBR approved for § 431.484.
(2) [Reserved]
(c)
(1) UL 1004-10 (1004-10:2020), “Standard for Safety for Pool Pump Motors,” First Edition, Dated February 28, 2020; IBR approved for §§ 431.481 and 431.483.
(2) [Reserved]
The definitions applicable to this subpart are defined in Section 2 “Glossary” of UL 1004-10:2020 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.482).
(a)
(b)
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Interim final rule with request for comments.
This interim final rule implements section 328 of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act, which revises the requirements for refinancing debt in the 504 Loan Program, including: For 504 debt refinancing involving expansions, increasing the amount of existing indebtedness that may be refinanced; and for 504 debt refinancing not involving expansions, removing two limitations on the program, reinstating an alternate job retention goal for the refinancing project, revising the definition of qualified debt, and removing the prohibition against Certified Development Companies (“CDCs”) participating in the Premier Certified Lenders Program using their delegated authority to make these loans.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AH78, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
SBA will post all comments on
Linda Reilly, Chief, 504 Program Branch, Office of Financial Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; telephone: (202) 604-5032; email:
The 504 Loan Program is an SBA financing program authorized under title V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, 15 U.S.C. 695
In addition, the 504 Loan Program may be used to refinance debt under two options authorized under section 502(7)(B) and (C) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. First, if a 504 Project involves the expansion of the small business, any amount of existing indebtedness that does not exceed 50 percent of the project cost of the expansion may be refinanced and added to the project's cost (Debt Refinancing with Expansion) under the conditions set forth in section 502(7)(B) and the implementing regulations.
Section 328(a) of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (Economic Aid Act),
(1) With respect to Debt Refinancing with Expansion, 13 CFR 120.882(e), the Economic Aid Act increases the amount of existing indebtedness that may be refinanced as part of a 504 Project from not more than 50 percent of the project cost of the expansion to not more than 100 percent of the project cost;
(2) With respect to Debt Refinancing without Expansion, 13 CFR 120.882(g), the Economic Aid Act:
(a) Eliminates the condition that this program shall only be in effect in any fiscal year during which the cost to the Federal Government of making guarantees under 13 CFR 120.882(g) and under the 504 Loan Program is zero;
(b) Eliminates the requirement that a CDC limit its financing under the 504 Loan Program so that, during any Federal fiscal year, new financings under 13 CFR 120.882(g) do not exceed 50% of the dollars the CDC loaned under the 504 Loan Program, including under 13 CFR 120.882(g), during the previous fiscal year, unless otherwise waived;
(c) Eliminates the prohibition against Premier Certified Lender Program (PCLP) CDCs using delegated authority to approve loan applications for Debt Refinancing without Expansion;
(d) Reinstates an alternate job retention standard that was previously removed from the Debt Refinancing without Expansion Program by section 521 of division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113, enacted on December 18, 2015;
(e) Revises the definition of “qualified debt” to mean debt that was incurred not less than 6 months before the date of application instead of 2 years before the date of application;
(f) Removes from the definition of “qualified debt” the condition that the debt not be subject to a guarantee by a Federal agency; and
(g) Eliminates from the definition of “qualified debt” the requirement that the borrower be current on all payments for not less than 1 year before the date of the application for refinancing.
As described in the section-by-section analysis below, SBA is issuing this interim final rule to conform the current rules to the requirements of the Economic Aid Act.
This interim final rule is effective without the advance notice and public comment required by section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), because section 303 of the Economic Aid Act authorizes SBA to issue regulations to implement the amendments described above without regard to notice requirements.
In addition, pursuant to section 553(d)(1), this rule is exempt from the APA's 30-day delayed effective date requirement on the basis that it is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions relating to the debt refinancing options available to small businesses. SBA has also determined that, pursuant to section 553(d)(3), there is good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delayed effective date on the grounds that it would be contrary to the public interest. To meet the immediate debt refinancing needs of small businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential to be able to implement the statutory changes to the refinancing programs as expeditiously as possible.
Although this rule is being published as an interim final rule, comments are solicited from interested members of the public. These comments must be submitted on or before the deadline for comments stated in this rule. SBA will consider any comments it receives and the need for making any amendments as a result of the comments.
In its place, this provision will set forth the conditions and requirements that will apply to the refinancing of a loan that is subject to a guarantee by a Federal agency or department. As indicated above, the Economic Aid Act removes the prohibition against refinancing a loan that is subject to a guarantee by a Federal agency or department. Although these loans may now be refinanced in the Debt Refinancing without Expansion program, the rule will provide that they must comply with SBA's policies related to the refinancing of existing 504 and 7(a) loans, including that:
(1) For an existing 504 loan, either both the Third Party Loan and the 504 loan must be refinanced, or the Third Party Loan must have been paid in full; and
(2) for an existing 7(a) loan, the CDC must verify in writing that the present lender is either unwilling or unable to modify the current payment schedule. In addition, in the case of same institution debt, if the Third Party Lender or the CDC affiliate as authorized under 13 CFR 120.820 is the 7(a) lender, the loan will be eligible for 504 refinancing only if the lender is unable to modify the terms of the existing loan because a secondary market investor will not agree to modified terms.
In addition, the rule will require that the refinancing of any Federally-guaranteed loan will provide a substantial benefit to the borrower. “Substantial benefit” will mean that the portion of the new installment amount attributable to the debt being refinanced must be at least 10 percent less than the existing installment amount(s). Prepayment penalties, financing fees, and other financing costs must be added to the amount being refinanced in calculating the percentage reduction in the new installment payment. The portion of the new installment amount attributable to Eligible Business Expenses will not need to be included in this calculation. The rule will also allow the Director, Office of Financial Assistance (D/FA) or designee to approve an exception to the 10 percent reduction requirement for good cause, and will not allow PCLP CDCs to use their delegated authority to approve a loan requiring this exception.
(1) The number of full-time employees of the borrower on the date on which the borrower applies for a loan under this subparagraph; and
(2) the product obtained by multiplying:
(a) The number of part-time employees of the borrower on the date on which the borrower applies for a loan under this subparagraph, by
(b) the quotient obtained by dividing the average number of hours each part-time employee of the borrower works each week by 40.
An example of how this standard is calculated is included in the text of the rule.
Second, paragraph (i) currently allows a loan that was refinanced within the 2 years before the date of application (the most recent loan) to be deemed incurred not less than 2 years before the date of the application provided that the effect of the most recent loan was to extend the maturity date without advancing any additional proceeds. With the minimum age of the qualified debt shortened from 2 years to 6 months, SBA believes that it is no longer necessary to address this situation and is, therefore, removing the second and third sentences of paragraph (i).
Third, paragraph (ii) currently excludes debt that is subject to a guarantee by a Federal agency or department. As stated above, section 328(a) of the Economic Aid Act no longer includes this statutory exclusion and SBA is removing this paragraph and renumbering the remaining paragraphs accordingly. The conditions and requirements that will apply to the refinancing of a loan that is subject to a Federal guarantee will be set forth in paragraph (g)(3).
Fourth, under the current paragraph (vi), the definition of qualified debt excludes a Third Party Loan that is part of an existing 504 Project. However, under the new paragraph (g)(3), an existing 504 loan may be refinanced when both the Third Party Loan and the 504 loan are being refinanced. Accordingly, SBA is revising this paragraph, which will be newly designated as paragraph (v), to incorporate this exception to the general prohibition against a qualified debt including a Third Party Loan.
Fifth, the current paragraph (vii) reflects the statutory requirement that, for the debt to qualify for refinancing, the applicant must be current on all payments due for not less than one year preceding the date of application. Section 502(7)(C) of the Small Business Investment Act, as amended by section 328(a) of the Economic Aid Act, no longer includes this requirement and, accordingly, SBA is removing this paragraph from the regulations. In accordance with prudent lending standards, SBA expects CDCs to consider whether the applicant is current on all payments due, and the applicant's history of delinquency, in its credit analysis.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule constitutes a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. SBA, however, is proceeding under the emergency provision at Executive Order 12866, section 6(a)(3)(D), based on the need to move expeditiously to mitigate the current conditions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
As shown in the table below, during the five-year period spanning FY 2016 and FY 2020, a total of 31,248 504 loans were approved for a total gross approval amount as of May 31, 2021 of $25,720,047,200. In addition, during this five-year period, SBA approved 202 debt refinance with expansion loans on average per year with an average annual dollar volume of $237,880,000, and approved 209 debt refinance without expansion loans on average per year with an average annual dollar volume of $203,339,000. Of the debt refinance with expansion loans, only 16 refinanced a debt that equaled 50 percent of the expansion costs; if these borrowers had been able to refinance 100 percent of the expansion costs instead of 50 percent, and assuming that all these borrowers did so, these borrowers would have been able to borrow $15 million more over five years, or about $3 million more annually.
Data as of 5/31/2021, total dollar volume is lifetime gross approval amount including increases.
This rule is necessary to implement the Economic Aid Act and provide economic relief to small businesses adversely impacted by COVID-19. SBA anticipates that the changes to the 504 debt refinancing programs will result in benefits to small businesses by providing greater flexibility to restructure debt.
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a major rule under Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This action meets applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have preemptive effect or retroactive effect.
This rule does not have Federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in the Executive order. As such it does not warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
In order to implement the Act, SBA has determined that it is necessary to modify SBA Form 1244,
(a) The information collection currently requires PCLP CDCs to process all applications for debt refinancing without expansion through the Sacramento Loan Processing Center (SLPC) and not through the PCLP CDC's delegated authority. As discussed above, this requirement was removed by the Economic Aid Act and, accordingly, SBA is removing it from the information collection. This revision does not change the information the PCLP CDC is required to collect, only how the application is processed. In addition, consistent with the changes made by this rulemaking, SBA is adding two questions to clarify that, for debt refinancing without expansion, PCLP CDCs must process applications through the SLPC when the application involves the refinancing of same institution debt or, in cases involving the refinancing of Federally-guaranteed debt, the CDC is requesting an exception to the requirement that the new installment payment be at least 10% less than the existing installment amount.
(b) With respect to the question regarding whether the Applicant creates or retains the required number of jobs per debenture amount, an option has been added for the Applicant to indicate whether the project is eligible under the 504 debt refinance alternate job goal established by the Economic Aid Act.
(c) Of the exhibits that are required, Exhibit 20 currently requires that, if the debt was previously refinanced within two years of the date of application, non-PCLP CDCs must submit with the application (and PCLP CDCs must retain in the loan file) copies of the current debt and lien instruments as well as copies of the debt and lien instruments for the debt that was replaced by the current debt. With the minimum age of the qualified debt shortened from 2 years to 6 months by the Economic Aid Act, SBA is revising the form to remove the requirement that these debt and lien instruments be included as part of Exhibit 20.
In addition to the changes resulting from this rule, SBA is making the following technical corrections and clarifying changes to Form 1244: (1) SBA is adding two questions, consistent with the current regulations, to clarify when PCLP CDCs must submit applications for refinancing with expansion to the SLPC instead of approving the application under their delegated authority; (2) SBA is correcting the description of which exhibits are to be retained and which are to be submitted with the loan application; (3) SBA is adding a separate entry to facilitate disclosure of the use of refinancing proceeds involving land purchases only (the current format of “Land/Building” does not clearly indicate how information is to be reported); and (4) under the list of economic development objectives met by the project, SBA is adding references to “base closures” and “minority-owned business”.
SBA has requested emergency approval from OMB for the revised information collection to implement the Economic Aid Act as expeditiously as possible.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small entities, including small non-profit businesses, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rule, the agency must prepare an analysis that describes whether the impact of the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities. However, the RFA requires such analysis only where notice and comment rulemaking is required. As discussed above, SBA is publishing this rule as an interim final rule without advance notice and public comment because section 303 of the Economic Aid Act authorizes SBA to issue regulations to implement the amendments in the Act without regard to notice requirements. This rule is, therefore, exempt from the RFA requirements.
Loan programs-business, Small businesses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR part 120 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(14), (h), and note, 636(a), (h), and (m), 636m, 650, 687(f), 696(3), 697, 697a, and 697e; Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 115; Public Law 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504; Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(g) * * *
(3) A loan that is subject to a guarantee by a Federal agency or department may be refinanced under the following conditions and requirements:
(i) An existing 504 loan may be refinanced if both the Third Party Loan and the 504 Loan are being refinanced or the Third Party Loan has been paid in full.
(ii) An existing 7(a) loan may be refinanced if the CDC verifies in writing that the present lender is either unwilling or unable to modify the current payment schedule. In the case of same institution debt, if the Third Party Lender or the CDC affiliate as authorized under § 120.820 is the 7(a) lender, the loan will be eligible for 504 refinancing only if the lender is unable to modify the terms of the existing loan because a secondary market investor will not agree to modified terms.
(iii) The refinancing will provide a substantial benefit to the borrower. For purposes of this paragraph (g)(3)(iii), “substantial benefit” means that the portion of the new installment amount attributable to the debt being refinanced must be at least 10 percent less than the existing installment amount(s). Prepayment penalties, financing fees, and other financing costs must be added to the amount being refinanced in calculating the percentage reduction in the new installment payment, but the portion of the new installment amount attributable to Eligible Business Expenses (as described in paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this section) is not included in this calculation. Exceptions to the 10 percent reduction requirement may be approved by the Director, Office of Financial Assistance (D/FA) or designee for good cause. PCLP CDCs may not use their delegated authority to approve a loan requiring the exception in this paragraph (g)(3)(iii).
(11) PCLP CDCs may not approve the refinancing of same institution debt under their delegated authority and must submit the application to SBA for approval.
(15) Notwithstanding § 120.860, a debt may be refinanced under this paragraph (g) if it does not meet the job creation or other economic development objectives set forth in § 120.861 or § 120.862. In such case, the 504 loan may not exceed the product obtained by multiplying the number of employees of the Borrower by $75,000. The number of employees of the Borrower is equal to the sum of:
(i) The number of full-time employees of the Borrower on the date of the application; and
(ii) The product obtained by multiplying:
(A) The number of part-time employees of the Borrower on the date of the application; by
(B) The quotient obtained by dividing the average number of hours each part-time employee of the Borrower works each week by 40.
(16) * * *
(A) That was incurred not less than 6 months before the date of the application for refinancing available under this paragraph (g).
(E) That is not a Third Party Loan that is part of an existing 504 Project, except as allowed under paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for various restricted category helicopters originally manufactured by Bell Textron Inc. This AD was prompted by a fatal accident in which an outboard main rotor hub strap pin (pin) sheared off during flight, resulting in the main rotor blade and the main rotor head detaching from the helicopter. This AD requires removing certain pins from service and prohibits installing those pins on any helicopter. The FAA previously sent an emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these restricted category helicopters and is now issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 13, 2021. Emergency 2021-15-52, issued on July 8, 2021, which contained the requirements of this amendment, was effective with actual notice.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by September 13, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bell Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101, United States; telephone 1-450-437-2862 or 1-800-363-8023; fax 1-450-433-0272; email
You may examine the AD docket at
David Wilson, Aerospace Engineer, DSCO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5786; email
On July 6, 2021, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2021-15-51 (Emergency AD 2021-15-51) for Bell Textron Inc. Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, and 212 helicopters. That action was prompted by a Bell Textron Inc., Model 212 helicopter fatal accident in which a pin part number (P/N) 204-012-104-005 with a serial number (S/N) prefix “FNFS” sheared off during flight, resulting in the main rotor blade and the main rotor head detaching from the helicopter. The pin had accumulated only 20 total hours time-in-service (TIS). An inspection of a different Model 212 helicopter revealed that another pin installed, and made by the same manufacturer with the same S/N prefix, was deformed; this pin had accumulated only 29 total hours TIS. Failure of the pin could result in the main rotor blade detaching from the helicopter and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Emergency AD CF-2021-23, dated July 5, 2021 (Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2021-23), to correct an unsafe condition for Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Model 204B helicopters, S/Ns 2001 through 2070 and 2196 through 2199; Model 205A-1 helicopters, S/Ns 30001 through 30065, 30067 through 30165, 30167 through 30187, 30189 through 30296, and 30298 through 30332; Model 205B helicopters, S/Ns 30066, 30166, 30188, and 30297; and Model 212 helicopters, S/Ns 30501 through 30999, 31101 through 31311, 32101 through 32142, and 35001 through 35103. Transport Canada advises that during an investigation of a Bell Textron Inc., Model 212 fatal accident in Canada, it was discovered that a pin P/N 204-012-104-005 with an S/N prefix “FNFS”, sheared off during flight, leading to detachment of the main rotor blade and the main rotor head. The pin had accumulated only 20 hours of service, and inspection of another Canadian Bell Textron Inc., Model 212 helicopter found a pin of the same P/N, made by the same manufacturer, with the same S/N prefix “FNFS”, to be deformed after only approximately 29 hours in service. According to Transport Canada, failure of a pin will result in detachment of the main rotor blade and loss of control of the helicopter. Transport Canada also advises that, although the defective pins were only reported on Bell Textron Inc., Model 212 helicopters, pins of the same P/N can also be installed on Bell Textron Inc., Model 204B, 205A-1, and 205B helicopters. While the cause of failure has not been determined, as a precautionary measure and to address the risk of detachment of affected pins in flight, Bell has issued alert service bulletins that specify replacing pins P/N 204-012-104-005 that have S/N prefix “FNFS”.
Accordingly, Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2021-23 requires replacement of affected pins. Transport Canada considers its emergency AD an interim action and states that further AD action may follow.
After Emergency AD 2021-15-51 was issued, the FAA determined that pin P/N 204-012-104-005 with S/N prefix “FNFS” could also be installed on restricted category helicopters originally manufactured by Bell Textron Inc. These helicopters include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Rotorcraft Development Corporation Model HH-1K helicopters;
• Robinson Air Crane Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; and Tamarack Helicopters, Inc., Model TH-1F helicopters;
• Bell Textron Inc.; Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc. (type certificate previously held by JTBAM, Inc.); and Rotorcraft Development Corporation Model TH-1L helicopters;
• Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc., Model UH-1A helicopters;
• International Helicopters, Inc.; Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc.; Red Tail Flying Services, LLC; Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc. (helicopters with an SW204 or SW204HP designation are Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc., Model UH-1B helicopters); and WSH, LLC (type certificate previously held by San Joaquin Helicopters), Model UH-1B helicopters;
• Bell Textron Inc.; Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; Smith Helicopters; and West Coast Fabrications Model UH-1E helicopters;
• AST, Inc.; California Department of Forestry; Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; and Tamarack Helicopters, Inc., Model UH-1F helicopters;
• 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. (helicopters with an SW205 designation are Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc., Model UH-1H helicopters); and Tamarack Helicopters, Inc., Model UH-1H helicopters;
• Bell Textron Inc.; Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc.; and Rotorcraft Development Corporation Model UH-1L helicopters; and
• Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; and Rotorcraft Development Corporation Model UH-1P helicopters.
Therefore, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2021-15-52 to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters. Emergency AD 2021-15-52 requires removing the affected pins from service and prohibits installing those pins on any helicopter. The FAA sent the emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters.
The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
The FAA reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) UH-1H-21-21 and Bell ASB UH-1H-II-21-31. Each ASB is dated July 7, 2021 and specifies removing all P/N 204-012-104-005 pins with an S/N prefix “FNFS” before next flight. These ASBs also specify that, although the investigation is still in progress, removing these pins from service is required. These ASBs state that these pins may not have been manufactured in accordance with the engineering design requirements and may therefore shear as a result of this nonconformance.
This AD requires removing pins P/N 204-012-104-005 with an S/N prefix “FNFS” before further flight. This AD also prohibits installing those pins on any helicopter as of the effective date of this AD.
The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that required the immediate adoption of Emergency AD 2021-15-52, issued on July 8, 2021, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. The FAA found that the risk to the flying public justified waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the required corrective actions must be completed before further flight. These conditions still exist, therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and comment.
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. 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 AD 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 AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to David Wilson, Aerospace Engineer, DSCO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5786; email
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 529 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.
Replacing up to four pins takes about 20 work-hours and parts cost about $1,756 for four pins for an estimated cost of up to $3,456 per helicopter.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
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 without actual notice on August 13, 2021. Emergency AD 2021-15-52, issued on July 8, 2021, which contained the requirements of this amendment, was effective with actual notice.
None.
This AD applies to various restricted category helicopters originally manufactured by Bell Textron Inc. (Bell), certificated in any category, with an outboard main rotor hub strap pin (pin) part number 204-012-104-005 with a serial number prefix “FNFS” installed. These helicopters include but are 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;
(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) Code: 6200, Main Rotor System.
This AD was prompted by a fatal accident in which a pin sheared off during flight, which resulted in the main rotor blade and the main rotor head detaching from the helicopter. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this unsafe condition and prevent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Before further flight, remove from service any pin that is identified in the introductory text of paragraph (c) of this AD.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any pin that is identified in the introductory text of paragraph (c) of this AD on any helicopter.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, DSCO 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 DSCO 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 David Wilson, Aerospace Engineer, DSCO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5786; email
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2021-23, dated July 5, 2021 and FAA Emergency AD 2021-15-51, dated July 6, 2021. You may view those ADs at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action revokes one Alaskan VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airway V-482 in the state of Alaska. The removal is required due to tree encroachment on the Johnstone Point VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) that renders the airway unusable.
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
Christopher McMullin, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it supports modifying, removing, and establishing the air traffic service route structure in Alaska to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2020-0544 in the
Alaskan VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(b) 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 Alaskan VOR Federal airway listed in this document will be subsequently removed from this 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 removing Alaskan VOR Federal airway V-482.
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 action of revoking VOR Federal airway V-482 in Alaska 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; correction.
This action corrects a final rule published by the FAA in the
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
Christopher McMullin, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2020-0567 in the
Canadian Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 2007 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 Canadian Area Navigation Routes 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
The description of Canadian Area Navigation Routes Q-811 and Q-902, as published on page 37237, in the
1. On page 37237, Table Q-811 DILLINGHAM, AK TO IGSOM [NEW]” is corrected by adding the following entry to the end of the table: “Excluding the airspace within Canada.”
2. On the same page, Table Q-902 SEATTLE, WA TO KOTZEBUE, AK [NEW]” is corrected by adding the following entry to the end of the table: “Excluding the airspace within Canada.”
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is codifying its findings that nine areas in four states attained the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (herein referred to as the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS) by the applicable attainment dates. This rule finalizes EPA's proposed determination that the following areas timely attained the standards: The Buffalo-Niagara Falls area, and the Jefferson County, Poughkeepsie and Jamestown areas in the State of New York; the Shoreline Sheboygan County and Inland Sheboygan County areas in Wisconsin; the Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland area in Colorado and the San Francisco Bay and Ventura County areas in California.
This final rule is effective August 30, 2021.
The EPA established Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0611 for this action. All documents in the docket are listed in the
For further general information on this final rule, contact Ms. Virginia Raps, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-4383;
In February 2019, the EPA sent letters to the state air agencies of New York, Wisconsin, Colorado and California affirming that a total of nine areas within these states attained the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment dates. On October 9, 2020,
The EPA received an anonymous comment on the proposal suggesting that the attainment year 2007-2009 design value (DV) for Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, Colorado, (herein referred to as the Denver area) was incorrect. Instead of 0.078 parts per million (ppm), as given in Table 1 of the direct final rule and in the supporting letter to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) from Region 8 dated February 8, 2019, the commenter suggested the DV for that time period was actually 0.082 ppm, citing the data provided on the EPA website at
The proposal received three other comments. One was complimentary to the EPA's proposal suggesting it was a good idea to show the states' success in attaining the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS. The remaining two comments were beyond the scope of this action.
On October 9, 2020, the EPA issued a proposal to codify in 40 CFR part 52 its findings that nine areas factually attained the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment dates. This rule provides the EPA's response to comments on the proposal and finalizes the action as proposed.
The areas that attained the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the attainment date and the associated DV information are summarized in Table 1.
This final rule requires no environmental justice considerations.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 [59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994]. The documentation for this decision is contained in Section IV of this document titled, “Environmental Justice Considerations.”
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of final actions that are locally and regionally applicable may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 27, 2021. However, the statute also provides
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements and Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, title 40, chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(l)
(d) Determination of attainment by the attainment date for the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Effective August 30, 2021. On November 13, 2020, the EPA determined that Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO, attained the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of November 20, 2010. The determination was based upon complete quality-assured and certified data for the three calendar years 2007-2009.
(s) Determination of attainment by the attainment date. Effective August 30, 2021. On February 4, 2019, the EPA determined that certain areas in New York attained the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2010. The determination was based upon complete quality-assured and certified data for the 3 calendar years 2007-2009 for the following areas:
(1) Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY (consisting of Erie and Niagara Counties).
(2) Jamestown, NY (consisting of Chautauqua County).
(3) Jefferson County, NY (consisting of Jefferson County).
(4) Poughkeepsie, NY (consisting of Dutchess, Orange and Putnam Counties).
(oo) Determination of attainment by the attainment date. Effective August 30, 2021. Effective August 30, 2021. On February 8, 2019, the EPA determined the Sheboygan County, WI, area attained the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the attainment date of June 15, 2010. On July 15, 2019, the EPA revised the designation for the Sheboygan County, WI, area for the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, by splitting the original full-county area into the separate Inland Sheboygan County, WI, and Shoreline Sheboygan County, WI, areas. On July 10, 2020, EPA redesignated both the Inland Sheboygan County, WI, nonattainment area [85 FR 41400] and the Shoreline Sheboygan County, WI, nonattainment area [85 FR 41405] to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, under 40 CFR 51.1105(b)(1), the areas are no longer subject to the anti-backsliding obligations for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS under 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closures.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for spiny lobster in the U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around Puerto Rico. NMFS has determined that the annual catch limit (ACL) for spiny lobster in Puerto Rico was exceeded based on average landings during the 2017 through 2019 fishing years. Therefore, NMFS reduces the length of the 2021 fishing season for spiny lobster in the EEZ around Puerto Rico by the amount necessary to ensure that landings do not exceed the ACL in 2021. This AM is necessary to protect the spiny lobster resource in the EEZ around Puerto Rico.
This temporary rule is effective from 12:01 a.m., local time, on August 22, 2021, through September 30, 2021.
Sarah Stephenson, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The spiny lobster fishery of the U.S. Caribbean is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Spiny Lobster of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) (Spiny Lobster FMP). The Spiny Lobster FMP was prepared by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
On June 26, 2020, NMFS published in the
The final rule implementing the 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment, which included Amendment 5 to the Spiny Lobster FMP, among others, established an ACL and AM for spiny lobster in each island management area in the U.S. Caribbean (76 FR 82414, December 30, 2011). For Puerto Rico, the ACL for spiny lobster is 327,920 lb (148,742 kg), round weight. In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.12(a)(3), if NMFS estimates landings have exceeded the spiny lobster ACL, based on an evaluation of a moving multi-year average of landings, NMFS will reduce the length of the fishing season for spiny lobster by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the ACL. If NMFS determines the ACL was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in total catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season.
Based on the most recent available landings data from the 2017-2019 fishing years, NMFS has determined that the spiny lobster ACL for Puerto Rico was exceeded. In addition, NMFS determined that the ACL was exceeded because of increased catch and not as a result of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts.
This temporary rule implements an AM for spiny lobster to reduce the length of the 2021 fishing season to ensure that landings do not exceed the spiny lobster ACL in the 2021 fishing year. Therefore, the spiny lobster fishery in the EEZ around Puerto Rico is closed from 12:01 a.m., local time, on August 22, 2021, through September 30, 2021. The EEZ around Puerto Rico consists of those waters seaward of the 9-nmi (16.7-km) boundary around the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
During the closure period for spiny lobster announced in this temporary rule, both the commercial and recreational sectors are closed. Spiny lobster in or from the EEZ around Puerto Rico may not be harvested, possessed, purchased, or sold, and the bag and possession limits are zero.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.12(a)(3), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rules implementing the ACL and the associated AM have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are also contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement the closure to protect the spiny lobster stock around Puerto Rico. The ACL has been exceeded based on an evaluation of available landings from the 2017-2019 fishing years. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could result in additional harvest that could negatively affect NMFS' ability to control harvest this fishing year within the established ACL.
For the aforementioned reasons, there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reapportionment.
NMFS is reapportioning the seasonal apportionments of the 2021 Pacific halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) limits for the trawl deep-water and shallow-water species fishery categories in the Gulf of Alaska. This action is necessary to account for the actual halibut PSC use by the trawl deep-water and shallow-water species fishery categories from May 15, 2021 through June 30, 2021. This action is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 27, 2021 through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2021.
Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The final 2021 and 2022 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (86 FR 10184, February 19, 2021) apportions the 2021 Pacific halibut PSC
Regulations at § 679.21(d)(4)(iii)(D) require NMFS to combine management of the available trawl halibut PSC limits in the second season (April 1 through July 1) deep-water and shallow-water species fishery categories for use in either fishery from May 15 through June 30 of each year. Furthermore, NMFS is required to reapportion the halibut PSC limit between the deep-water and shallow-water species fisheries after June 30 to account for actual halibut PSC use by each fishery category during May 15 through June 30. As of July 23, 2021, NMFS has determined that the trawl deep-water and shallow-water fisheries used 74 metric tons (mt) and 4 mt of halibut PSC, respectively, from May 15 through June 30. Accordingly, pursuant to § 679.21(d)(4)(iii)(A) and § 679.21(d)(4)(iii)(D), the Regional Administrator is reapportioning the combined first and second seasonal apportionments (860 mt) of halibut PSC limit between the trawl deep-water and shallow-water fishery categories to account for the actual PSC use (149 mt) in each fishery from January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021. Therefore, Table 15 of the final 2021 and 2022 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (86 FR 10184, February 19, 2021) is revised consistent with this adjustment.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would allow for harvests that exceed the originally specified apportionment of the halibut PSC limits to the deep-water and shallow-water fishery categories. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of July 23, 2021.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to revoke the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Creech Air Force Base (AFB) Airport, Indian Springs, NV. This action also proposes several administrative updates to the Class D legal description. This action would ensure the safety and management of operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before September 13, 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-2021-0591; Airspace Docket No. 21-AWP-15, 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
Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3695.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would revoke the Class E airspace at Creech AFB Airport, Indian Springs, NV. The revocation is appropriate because no instrument flight rules (IFR) procedures are published for the airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory 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-2021-0591; Airspace Docket No. 21-AWP-15”. 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 is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by revoking the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Creech AFB Airport, Indian Springs, NV. This type of Class E airspace is designed to contain IFR aircraft transitioning to/from the terminal and en route
This action also proposes two administrative updates to the Class D legal description. The second line of the text header should be updated from “Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field, NV” to “Creech AFB Airport, NV”, to match the FAA database. Additionally, the third line of the text header should be updated from “(lat. 36°35′14″ N, long. 115°40′24″ W)” to “(lat. 36°35′11″ N, long. 115°40′39″ W)”, to match the FAA database.
Class D and Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 5,700 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the airport, excluding Restricted Area R-4806W. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of study; request for comments.
The Coast Guard is conducting a Port Access Route Study (PARS) to evaluate safe access routes for the movement of vessel traffic proceeding to or from ports or places along the western seaboard of the United States and to determine whether a Shipping Safety Fairway (“Fairway”) and/or routing measures should be established, adjusted or modified. The PARS will evaluate the continued applicability of, and the need for modifications to, current vessel routing measures. The data gathered during this Pacific Coast PARS (PACPARS) may result in the establishment of one or more new vessel routing measures, modification of existing routing measures, or disestablishment of existing routing measures off the Pacific Coast between Washington and California. To assist us in conducting the PACPARS, we invite your responses to questions in the
Comments and related material must be received on or before January 25, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2021-0345 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
If you have questions about this notification of study, call or email LCDR Sara Conrad, Coast Guard Pacific Area (PAC-54), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (510) 437-3813, email
The PWSA requires the Coast Guard to conduct a PARS, i.e. a study of potential traffic density and the need for safe access routes for vessels, before establishing or adjusting fairways or TSSs. Through the study process, we must coordinate with Federal, State, and foreign state agencies (as appropriate) and consider the views of maritime community representatives, environmental groups, and other interested stakeholders. A primary purpose of this coordination is, to the extent practicable, to reconcile the need for safe access routes with other reasonable waterway uses such as construction and operation of renewable energy facilities and other uses of the Pacific Ocean in the study area.
The goal of the PACPARS is to enhance navigational safety by examining existing shipping routes and waterway uses, and, to the extent practicable, reconciling the paramount right of navigation within designated port access routes with other waterway uses such as the development of aquaculture farms, offshore renewable energy, commercial space ports/re-entry sites, marine sanctuaries, ports supporting Panamax vessels, potential LNG ports and additional commercial vessel traffic.
As part of this study, we will analyze current and historical vessel traffic, fishing vessel information, agency and stakeholder experience in vessel traffic management, navigation, ship handling, and effects of weather. We encourage you to participate in the study process by submitting comments in response to this document.
We will publish the results of the PARS in the
(1) What navigational hazards do vessels operating in the study area face? Please describe.
(2) Are there strains on the current vessel routing systems, such as increasing traffic density associated with future growth? Please describe.
(3) Are modifications to existing vessel routing measures needed to address hazards and improve traffic efficiency in the study area? If so, please describe.
(4) What costs and benefits are associated with the measures listed as potential study considerations? What measures do you think are most cost-effective?
(5) What impacts, both positive and negative, would changes to existing routing measures or new routing measures have on the study area?
(6) Where do you transit? Where are your transit routes? What criteria are used in determining your transit routes?
(7) Do you currently experience competing uses for the same waterway areas or transit routes? If so, please describe.
(8) Do you anticipate, or are you aware of, future competing uses for the same waterway areas or transit routes? These could include potential offshore energy projects, potential offshore aquaculture projects, or otherwise.
(9) Are there other environmental, cultural, tribal, marine mammal or other impacts which should be considered during this Port Access Route Study?
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this notification of study as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.
This document is published under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70003(c)(1).
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
Because of technical issues with the electronic filing system, the Copyright Royalty Judges are reopening the comment period in connection with a proposed partial settlement and proposed regulations that set certain rates and terms applicable during the period beginning January 1, 2023, and ending December 31, 2027, for the section 115 statutory license for making and distributing phonorecords of nondramatic musical works for an additional 15 days.
The comment period for the proposed rule published June 25, 2021, at 86 FR 33601, is reopened. Comments and objections, if any, are due no later than August 10, 2021.
You may send comments, identified by docket number 21-CRB-0001-PR (2023-2027), online through eCRB at
Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist, at 202-707-7658 or
On June 25, 2021, The Copyright Royalty Judges published for comment proposed regulations (arising from a partial settlement) that set rates and terms applicable during the period beginning January 1, 2023, and ending December 31, 2027, for the section 115 statutory license for making and distributing phonorecords of nondramatic musical works. Comments were due by July 26, 2021. 86 FR 33601 (June 25, 2021). Some filers experienced technical difficulties filing their comments in eCRB. The CRB is aware of the problem and is working on a solution. The Judges therefore extend the deadline for filing comments to August 10, 2021.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maine. This revision amends the definition of “Ozone Transport Region” in the State's Chapter 100 Definitions Regulation and revises language in the State's Chapter 113 Growth Offset Regulation regarding applicability of Nonattainment New Source Review in areas that, at a future date, may not be within the Ozone Transport Region. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before August 30, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2021-0381 at
John Creilson, Air Quality Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109, tel. (617) 918-1688, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On February 10 and 24, 2021, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) submitted two revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of an amendment to the existing Code of Maine Rules (C.M.R.) Chapter 113 Growth Offset Regulation (Chapter 113) and C.M.R. Chapter 100 Definitions Regulation (Chapter 100), respectively, both of which were previously approved into the Maine SIP.
Pursuant to section 184 of the CAA, the State of Maine is included within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). On February 24, 2020, the State of Maine submitted a petition to the EPA under section 176A of the CAA to remove certain portions of the State from the OTR. On May 3, 2021, EPA published in the
Additionally, as a result of Maine's OTR opt-out request, language in Chapter 113 of the approved SIP was required to be updated. The State submitted a revision to the existing SIP-approved Chapter 113 sections 1 and 2 on February 10, 2021. ME DEP's March 23, 2021 clarification letter similarly instructs EPA to retain all existing language already in the SIP-approved version of Chapter 113, except for the updated language included in the State's SIP submittal.
The proposed change amends the definition of the “Ozone Transport Region” in the Chapter 100 Definitions Regulation by changing the last sentence from “. . . For the State of Maine, the Ozone Transport Region includes all of the counties in the State” to “. . . For the State of Maine, the Ozone Transport Region includes all of Maine except for those portions of the State specifically removed from the OTR pursuant to CAA 176A.”
EPA has reviewed Maine's February 24, 2021, submittal of a revision to Chapter 100 Definitions Regulation and determined that it represents an approvable revision to the version previously approved into the Maine SIP. The revised definition does not relieve the State of OTR obligations until the CAA 176A petition is approved by EPA. In the event EPA does not finalize its proposed approval of Maine's CAA 176A request, no change to Maine's status as being within the OTR will result from this SIP revision.
The proposed Chapter 113 changes are as follows: (1) Replace the previous section 1, Applicability, of the approved SIP, and (2) add new language codified as 3(E)(1)(c)(ii) in Maine's Chapter 113 after 2(C)(3)(b) of Chapter 113 currently approved into the SIP. The updated section 1 is revised as follows: “The following types of stationary sources that seek to locate or expand within the geographical bounds of a nonattainment area, would have a significant impact in a nonattainment area, or seek to locate or expand within the Ozone Transport Region (concerning ozone precursor pollutants only) must obtain offset credits as provided for in this Chapter.” The amended section continues by discussing the four types of stationary sources impacted. Section 2 was updated by adding the following to the end of section 2(C)(3)(b): “Locating In an Ozone Attainment Area in the OTR: For a new major source or major modification subject to this Chapter locating in an ozone attainment area in the OTR, the source from which the offset credits are being obtained must be located in the OTR and may be located within another ozone attainment area or within an ozone nonattainment area if approved by the Department and EPA. Sources locating in an ozone attainment area within the OTR must obtain VOC offset credits at a ratio of 1.15 to 1. A new major source or major modification subject to this Chapter locating in an
EPA has reviewed Maine's February 10, 2021, submittal of a revision to Chapter 113 Growth Offset Regulation and determined that it represents an approvable revision to the version previously approved into the Maine SIP. The revisions clarify that offsets must be obtained from within the OTR, which is significant in the event EPA approves Maine's CAA section 176A request. Furthermore, the new language reinforces the notion that offsets being obtained from another ozone attainment or nonattainment area in the OTR require approval by EPA and ME DEP. The CAA and Maine's existing SIP-approved Chapter 113 contain provisions that require a demonstration of contribution when offsets are allocated from areas outside that of the area where the new major source or major modification will be located.
The State of Maine's regulations in Chapter 113 have been amended in the past under state law after they were originally approved into the SIP. Not all of those state law amendments were submitted to EPA as formal SIP revisions. Those “state-only” amendments resulted in new text being added, existing text being rearranged, and, in some cases, changes to how Maine regulations are codified. Due to such “state-only” amendments to Chapter 113, there are instances where the state regulation being submitted for approval into the SIP at this time does not mesh precisely within the existing codification structure of the Maine SIP. As a matter of substantive legal requirements, however, the regulations approved into the Maine SIP, including those we are approving today, are harmonious, clear, and enforceable.
Below, we describe exactly how each definition and provision we are approving into Maine's SIP through this document will be incorporated into the SIP.
Section 1 of Chapter 113 will be replaced with a new Section 1(A)(1). This change is straightforward and does not present any codification issues.
In addition, to the change to Section 1, new provisions codified in state law as Section 3(E)(1)(c)(ii) will be added to the SIP and will be placed after already existing SIP provisions in section 2(C)(3)(b). The fact that this codification does not numerically follow a consistent pattern does not affect the substantive validity or enforceability of the newly incorporated provisions. As noted above, this codification issue arises as a result of changes to state law that were never submitted to EPA as SIP revisions.
Finally, the definition of Ozone Transport Region in Chapter 100 is being amended to reflect Maine's petition to the EPA Administrator relating to the State's interest in partially removing certain areas of the State from the Ozone Transport Region. Due to prior changes to Chapter 100 (Definitions) that were not approved into the SIP, the new definition of Ozone Transport Region will be codified as definition number 111. The prior definition of Ozone Transport Region in the SIP was codified as definition 104. Definition 104 will be removed from the SIP and the new definition of Ozone Transport Region will be added to the SIP as definition 111. We note that the current SIP has a definition of “Part 70 license” that is numbered 111. The new definition of Ozone Transport Region will be added to the SIP with the same number (111) as the definition of “Part 70 license.” The fact that there will be two definitions in the SIP identified as definition 111 will not affect the substantive effect or the enforceability of either term.
EPA is proposing to approve the revision to Chapter 113 and the revision to Chapter 100 submitted by Maine on February 10 and 24, 2021, respectively. These SIP revisions satisfy the requirements of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act because the plan revisions will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further progress or any other requirement of the Clean Air Act. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to Maine's Chapter 100 Definitions Regulation, as effective on February 9, 2021, and Chapter 113 Growth Offset Regulation, as effective on January 14, 2019. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC or Department), on April 24, 2020. The SIP revisions update the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) regulations. Specifically, the SIP revisions add and update several definitions for consistency with the Federal regulations, update public participation requirements for PSD, clarify the applicability of “source impact analysis” for PSD, add an emissions offset banking provision for NNSR, and make administrative updates, such as typographical corrections and renumbering. Finally, the changes incorporate language that addresses the public notice rule provisions for NNSR, which removes the mandatory requirements to provide public notice in a newspaper and instead allows for electronic notice (“e-notice”) as an alternate noticing option for the State. EPA is proposing to approve these revisions pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and implementing Federal regulations.
Comments must be received on or before August 30, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0524 at
Andres Febres, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-8966. Mr. Febres can also be reached via electronic mail at
On April 24, 2020, SDHEC submitted SIP revisions to EPA for approval that include changes to South Carolina's major source New Source Review (NSR) permitting regulations to make them more closely align with Federal requirements for PSD and NNSR permitting; correct typographical errors; and update internal references, including renumbering throughout both regulations. Specifically, these changes update South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7—
With certain exceptions described in Section III below, EPA is proposing to approve the changes submitted by South Carolina on April 24, 2020, which modify the State's PSD and NNSR programs, as meeting the requirements of the Federal NSR program and being consistent with the CAA.
This proposed action seeks to revise South Carolina's PSD and NNSR regulations in the federally-approved SIP. Many of these changes are administrative in nature, including updating internal references and correcting typographical errors, but they do include the adoption of several definitions currently in the Federal NSR regulations, update public participation requirements for PSD, clarify the applicability of “source impact
On October 5, 2016, EPA finalized the revised public notice rule provisions for the Federal NSR, Title V, and the Outer Continental Shelf permitting programs of the CAA.
E-notice is already being practiced by many permitting authorities, including South Carolina in their PSD program, because it enables them to communicate permitting and other affected actions to the public more quickly and efficiently while lowering costs by eliminating or minimizing newspaper publications. A full description of the Federal e-notice provisions is available in EPA's October 18, 2016 final rulemaking notice.
As mentioned above, the April 24, 2020, SIP revisions include changes to South Carolina's PSD and NNSR regulations. Many of these changes are administrative in nature, including updating internal references, correcting typographical errors, and renumbering paragraphs. However, the SIP revisions do include several changes intended to make South Carolina's major source NSR regulations more closely align with the Federal major source NSR regulations, including the adoption of several definitions, and updating of other definitions, that are currently in the Federal NSR regulations. Included below in Sections III.A. and III.B. are more details on the key updates proposed for adoption into the South Carolina SIP.
The April 24, 2020, SIP revisions include the following key changes within the State's current SIP-approved PSD regulations in order to more closely align with the Federal PSD regulations: (1) Updating the definition of “Building, structure, facility or installation;” (2) Deleting the mention of fugitive emissions from the definition of “Major modification” and “Net emissions increase;” (3) Adding a definition for “Pollution prevention;” (4) Updating the “Exceptions” section to clarify the applicability of the “Source Impact Analysis” section of the PSD regulations in regards to the 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS); (5) Updating the definition of “Monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting;” and (6) Updating the public participation requirements for PSD, including those for plantwide applicability limits (PALs) permits under PSD. More details are included below.
Under Section (B),
Originally found in paragraphs (b)(30)(v) and (b)(34)(iii)(d), South Carolina's PSD regulations contained a description of fugitive emissions under the definitions of “Major modification” and “Net emissions increase.” In the April 24, 2020, SIP revisions, these two paragraphs are renumbered to (B)(30)(e) and (B)(34)(c)(ii), respectively, and the text is removed and replaced with “[Reserved]”. The Federal PSD regulation, specifically at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(v) and (b)(3)(iii)(
Also, under the
Under Section (I),
Under Section (R),
Finally, under Section (Q),
All other changes to Standard No. 7 included in the April 24, 2020, SIP revisions are administrative in nature and are being proposed for approval into the South Carolina SIP.
The April 24, 2020, SIP revisions include the following key changes within the State's current SIP-approved NNSR regulations to more closely align with the Federal NNSR regulations: (1) Adding multiple definitions included in the Federal NNSR regulations; (2) Updating and renumbering existing definitions in South Carolina's SIP; (3) Adopting language regarding interpollutant trading and banking; and (4) Updating the “Public participation” requirements for NNSR, including those for PALs permits under NNSR.
Under Section (A),
Under Section (B),
The new definition for “Resource recovery facility,” found in paragraph (B)(34) of South Carolina's Standard No. 7.1 in the SIP revision, does not match the Federal NNSR regulations because the Federal rules do not contain a definition for this kind of facility. However, the new definition merely clarifies what constitutes a resource recovery facility and does not create a new exemption or limitation on the applicability of the State's NNSR regulations. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the definition into the South Carolina SIP.
Also, under Section (B), South Carolina's April 24, 2020, SIP revisions update and replace two lists, converting them into a table format. Specifically, the changes involve paragraph (B)(22)(a), formerly found in paragraph (c)(7)(A), and paragraph (B)(37), formerly found in paragraph (c)(14).
Former paragraph (c)(7)(A), which contained the definition of “Major stationary source,” used to include a list of emissions thresholds for sources in certain nonattainment areas under paragraphs (c)(7)(A)(i)(a) through (d). These thresholds are now recodified in the table found in paragraph (B)(22)(a)(i) and are expanded for clarity. The threshold values and list of pollutants are unchanged from the SIP-approved version of the rule. Although the revision does not add ammonia as a precursor to fine particulate matter (PM
Former paragraph (c)(14) contained a definition of “Significant” and included a list of emission rates at or above which a net emissions increase or the potential to emit from a source would be considered significant. South Carolina renumbered the definition as paragraph (B)(37) and created a table containing the significant emissions rates. The rates in the new table generally match the rates in former paragraph (c)(14), except for the rates for carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone, which are expanded to include more stringent rates. For CO, South Carolina's April 24, 2020, SIP revisions maintain the old emissions rate, now only applicable in marginal and moderate nonattainment areas, but add a more stringent emissions rate for serious nonattainment areas. Similarly, for ozone, South Carolina maintains the old emissions rate, now applicable only for marginal and moderate nonattainment areas, but adds more stringent rates for serious and severe nonattainment areas, as well as for extreme nonattainment areas. Given that these changes are more stringent than the current SIP-approved rule, EPA believes that they are appropriate for incorporation into the South Carolina SIP.
Under Section (C), which incorporates parts of former paragraph (d)—
As part of the changes to Section (C), South Carolina includes two new paragraphs, (C)(1)(d) and (e). Paragraph (C)(1)(d) adds as a condition for a permit approval, for the source to obtain a positive net air quality benefit in the affected area, as determined by 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S. Paragraph (C)(1)(e) adds a condition for the source to carry out an alternative sites analysis in order to demonstrate that benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its location, construction, or modification.
Under new paragraphs (C)(2) and (C)(3), South Carolina adds new exemptions for “Temporary emissions source[s]” and “Secondary emissions.” The exemption for “Temporary emissions source” does not exempt temporary sources, defined by the State as plants or facilities that will be relocated outside the nonattainment area after a short period of time, from obtaining a permit. This change exempts these types of sources from meeting the requirements of paragraphs (C)(1)(c) and (C)(1)(d), which require that the source obtain emissions reductions from other sources to offset the increase in emissions. The exemption for “Secondary emissions” states that if a source is subject to the NNSR regulation due to direct emissions from the source, the applicable conditions in paragraph (C)(1) must also be met for secondary emissions; however, secondary emissions may be exempt from paragraphs (C)(1)(a) (lowest achievable emissions rate) and (C)(1)(b) (compliance certification). EPA is proposing to approve the addition of paragraphs (C)(2) and (C)(3) because they are consistent with the exemptions in Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51 and still require preconstruction review for temporary sources and sources subject to NNSR regulation due to direct emissions.
Finally, the changes to Section (C) include a clarification paragraph in regards to particulate matter (PM
Under new Section (D),
In the April 24, 2020, SIP revisions, South Carolina adds new Sections (H) through (K) to the State's NNSR regulations. Sections (J) and (K) only contain a “[Reserved]” note, to leave space for future updates. Sections (H) and (I) include South Carolina's adoption of language related to interpollutant offsetting and banking of emission offsets, respectively. The language generally aligns with that of the Federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3) and (11), as well as Appendix S to Part 51, but does not constitute a valid banking and trading program because it is missing some of the key elements that are required to ensure that these offsets are traded and banked correctly and utilizing permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable reductions.
Additionally, Section (H),
For the reasons discussed above, EPA is not proposing to incorporate Section (H) into the South Carolina SIP, and is proposing to incorporate only the addition of Section (I),
Finally, under Section (M),
All other changes for Standard No. 7.1 included in the April 24, 2020, SIP revisions are administrative in nature.
In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference South Carolina's Regulation 61-62.5, Standards No. 7—
As described above, EPA is proposing to approve, with some exceptions, the changes to the South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standards No. 7—
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Because this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
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.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for Reconsideration.
A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Ian P. Culver, on behalf of California Public Utilities Commission.
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before August 13, 2021. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 23, 2021.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Saswat Misra, Attorney-Advisor, Cybersecurity & Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0944 or via email at
This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3179, released July 19, 2021. The full text of the Petition can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:
Subject: In the Matter of Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, published at 86 FR 22796, April 29, 2021, in PS Docket No. 15-80. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e).
National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995), this notice announces the intention of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to request an extension of a currently approved information collection, Information Collection for Document Delivery Services at the National Agricultural Library (NAL), which expires February 28, 2022.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 27, 2021.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS-NAL, Digitization and Access Branch, 10301 Baltimore Avenue, Room 305-D, Beltsville, MD 20705-2351.
Kay Derr, Librarian, telephone: 301-504- 5879; email:
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the 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 burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by August 30, 2021. 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
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs
This is a request to make a substantive change to the currently approved Agricultural Labor docket. In this substantive change, NASS will reduce the sample size and reduce the number of questions being asked. Previously, NASS conducted the Agricultural Labor Survey under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Recently, the DOL cut off funding of the Labor survey, warranting this reduction in sample size and cut in the number of questions asked. NASS will publish the results of the survey, but the publication will resemble the publication that was published on Nov. 15, 2018. The questions that will be removed from the questionnaire are those referencing base wages, base hours worked, overtime wages, overtime hours worked, and bonus wages. NASS will still collect gross wages and total hours worked.
Food and Nutrition Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice.
This notice announces the national average value of donated foods or, where applicable, cash in lieu of donated foods, to be provided in school year 2022 (July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022) for each lunch served by schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and for each lunch and supper served by institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).
Effective date: July 1, 2021.
Erica Antonson, Branch Chief, Policy Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314, or telephone (703) 305-2680.
These programs are located in the Assistance Listings under Nos. 10.555 and 10.558 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)
This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to Office of Management and Budget review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
This notice implements mandatory provisions of sections 6(c) and 17(h)(1)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1755(c) and 1766(h)(1)(B)). Section 6(c)(1)(A) of the Act establishes the national average value of donated food assistance to be given to States for each lunch served in the NSLP at 11.00 cents per meal. Pursuant to section 6(c)(1)(B), this amount is subject to annual adjustments on July 1 of each year to reflect changes in a three-month average value of the Producer Price Index for Foods Used in Schools and Institutions for March, April, and May each year (Price Index). Section 17(h)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the same value of donated foods (or cash in lieu of donated foods) for school lunches shall also be established for lunches and suppers served in the CACFP. Notice is hereby given that the national average minimum value of donated foods, or cash in lieu thereof, per lunch under the NSLP (7 CFR part 210) and per lunch and supper under the CACFP (7 CFR part 226) shall be 26.00 cents for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.
The Price Index is computed using five major food components in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index (cereal and bakery products; meats, poultry, and fish; dairy; processed fruits and vegetables; and fats and oils). Each component is weighted using the relative weight as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The value of food assistance is adjusted each July 1 by the annual percentage change in a three-month average value of the Price Index for March, April, and May each year. The three-month average of the Price Index increased by 6.47 percent from 213.45 for March, April, and May of 2020, as previously published in the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the New York Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via WebEx on Friday, August 20, 2021; from 1:00-2:15 p.m. ET, for the purpose of discussing the Committee's project on potential racial discrimination in eviction policies and enforcement in New York.
The meeting will be held on Friday, August 20, 2021; from 1:00 p.m.-2:15 p.m. ET.
•
•
Mallory Trachtenberg, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organizations they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference call. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Mallory Trachtenberg at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Mississippi Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via web conference on Monday, August 16, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Central Time. The purpose of the meeting is to review and take a final vote on the Committee's report on qualified immunity.
The meeting will be held on Monday, August 16, 2021 from 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. Central Time.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public may listen to this discussion through the above call in number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received by the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The Census Bureau produces statistics used to monitor activity in the large and dynamic construction industry. Given the importance of this industry, several of the statistical series have been designated by the Office of Management and Budget as Principal Economic Indicators. Two such indicators are directly dependent on the key estimates from the BPS. For New Residential Construction (which includes Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits, Housing Starts, and Housing Completions), form C-404 is used to collect the estimate for Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits. For New Residential Construction and Sales, the number of housing units authorized by building permits is a key component utilized in the estimation of housing units started, completed, and sold.
These statistics help state, local, and federal governments, as well as private industry, analyze this important sector of the economy. The building permit series are available monthly based on a sample of building permit offices, and annually based on the entire universe of permit offices. Published data from the survey can be found on the Census Bureau's website at
Beginning January 2022, the U.S. Census Bureau is proposing to change the methodology for the tabulation of monthly Building Permit Survey. The methodology will change from a representative sample to a cutoff sample based on recent permit activity by jurisdiction.
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
Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the proposed extension of the Spatial, Address, and Imagery Data (SAID) Program, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 27, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Matthew A. Zimolzak, Geography Division, Census Bureau, 301-763-9419,
The Spatial, Address, and Imagery Data (SAID) Program is one of many voluntary geographic partnership programs that collects data to update the U.S. Census Bureau's geographic database of addresses, streets, boundaries, and imagery, known as the Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) System. The Census Bureau uses the MAF/TIGER System to link demographic data from surveys and the decennial census to locations and areas, such as cities, American Indian reservations and trust lands, census tracts, and counties. In order to properly tabulate census and survey response data by the correct geographic area, the Census Bureau requires current and accurate addresses and boundaries.
The SAID Program provides the Census Bureau with a continuous method to obtain current, accurate, and complete address, street centerline, and imagery data from tribal, state, and local government partners. The purpose of the SAID Program is to help maintain the Census Bureau's geographic framework for data collection, tabulation, and dissemination between decennial censuses and to support ongoing programs such as the American Community Survey and the Population Estimates Program. Over the past eight (8) years, the SAID Program, originally titled the Geographic Support System (GSS) Partnership Program, has enabled the Census Bureau to update addresses and street centerlines across the country, with participation covering nearly 89% of the housing units in the nation. Moving forward, the SAID Program will continue to focus on acquiring addresses, street centerlines, and imagery in areas targeted for housing unit growth or change.
Each year, the SAID Program invitees are determined by several different evaluation factors, including address growth, address change, comparison with other Census Bureau statistics, past SAID or GSS Partnership Program participation status, and other factors. The Census Bureau contacts potential participants by telephone and email to request addresses, street centerlines, and imagery data that are no more than two years old, along with supporting metadata. In some cases, the Census Bureau will request entire datasets, while in other cases the Census Bureau may request only changes since a previous submission. The Census Bureau attempts to contact each invitee no less than three times before contact is rescheduled for a later cycle. The Census Bureau provides the participants who agree to provide data with information needed to create a Secure Web Incoming Module (SWIM) account, used for secure data transfers to the Census Bureau. Participants then submit their data in a single submission through the SWIM at their convenience. If a participant submits files with incomplete metadata, the Census Bureau will contact the participant requesting the additional metadata information. The Census Bureau will only process the files with appropriate metadata.
The data collected in the SAID Program may be used to define geographic boundaries, including census blocks, and to place households and group quarters in a specific census block. The SAID Program follows the process below:
1. The Census Bureau invites participants, including tribal, state, and local governments; federal agencies; and other authoritative organizations each fiscal year.
2. Participants are asked to provide a current address list with associated location points and attributes, street centerline, and/or imagery data for their jurisdiction that is no more than two years old.
3. Participants upload the requested data files using the SWIM, per Census Bureau procedures.
4. The Census Bureau validates then updates the MAF/TIGER System with the address and street centerline data provided by the participants and uses the provided imagery for quality control and change detection.
5. The Census Bureau uses the updated addresses and streets to support Census Bureau field operations, survey response collection, and data tabulation.
• Census Bureau Contact with Local Governments: 1,000.
• Census Bureau Acquisition of Local Geographic Data and Content Clarification: 500.
• Census Bureau Contact with Local Governments: 1 hour.
• Census Bureau Acquisition of Local Geographic Data and Content Clarification: 1.5 hours.
• Census Bureau Contact with Local Governments: 1,000.
• Census Bureau Acquisition of Local Geographic Data and Content Clarification: 1,500.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include, or summarize, each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your
Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the proposed reinstatement, with change, of the Management and Organizational Practices Survey, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 27, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Marlo Thornton, Assistant Division Chief, Economy-Wide Statistics Division, at
The Census Bureau plans to conduct the Management and Organizational Practices Survey (MOPS) for survey year 2021; the survey was previously conducted for survey years 2010 and 2015. The survey will be conducted as a joint project by the Census Bureau, the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences, and the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. The MOPS will utilize the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM) mail-out sample and will collect information on management and organizational practices at the establishment level. The Census Bureau has conducted the ASM since 1949 to provide key measures of manufacturing activity during intercensal periods. In years that we conduct the Economic Census, years ending in “2” and “7”, we do not mail the ASM but collect the data as part of the Economic Census covering the Manufacturing Sector. The ASM is an integral part of the Federal Government's statistical program, furnishing up-to date estimates of employment and payroll, hours and wages of production workers, value added by manufacture, cost of materials, value of shipments, inventories, and expenditures for both plant and equipment and structures. The data obtained from the MOPS will allow the Census Bureau to estimate a firm's stock of management and organizational assets, specifically the use of decentralized decision rights and establishment performance data such as production targets in decision-making. These data will provide information on investments in management and organizational practices, which will lead to a better understanding of the benefits from these investments when measured in terms of firm productivity or firm market value. This survey on management and organizational practices will provide information on the dimensions of organizational capital for this sector not currently available elsewhere. This clearance request will be for the survey year 2021. The Census Bureau plans to make the following changes to the 2015 MOPS content for the 2021 survey:
• Add a new purchased services module on the establishment's use of its own employees, contractors, temporary staff, or leased workers for select business expenses.
• Update the data and decision-making module by removing five of the six questions, maintaining a question asking who decides what data to collect for continuity, and adding nine questions focused on the frontier uses of data to inform artificial intelligence.
• Add three questions to the background characteristics module on the establishment's use of an external Certified Public Accountant.
• Simplify questions on the location of decision-making in multi-location firms in the organization module by combining them into a single table and removing write-in responses.
• Remove four forecasting questions in the uncertainty module.
• Remove two questions related to the establishment's background characteristics.
• Remove all questions about a five-year recall period.
The 2021 MOPS will be mailed separately from the 2021 ASM and will utilize an entirely electronic collection. Unlike the ASM that mails to the headquarters of companies with multiple locations, the MOPS will be mailed directly to the individual establishments. Initial contact with respondents will be a mailed letter directing them to report online. Respondents will report electronically through the Census Bureau's Centurion online reporting system. The sample for the 2021 MOPS will consist of the approximately 50,000 establishments in the 2021 ASM mail-out sample. The mail-out sample for the ASM is redesigned at 5-year intervals beginning the second survey year after the Economic Census. For the 2019 ASM, a new probability sample was selected from a frame of approximately 100,000 manufacturing establishments in the 2017 Economic Census that had paid employees, were located in the United States, and were associated with multi-
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include, or summarize, each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the Republic of Korea were not sold in the United States at prices below normal value during the period of review (POR), September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019.
Applicable July 29, 2021.
Michael J. Heaney, George McMahon, or Marc Castillo, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4475, (202) 482-1167, or (202) 482-5019, respectively.
On January 25, 2021, Commerce published the
For a complete description of the events that followed the
This review covers three producers and exporters of the subject merchandise. Based on an analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the margin calculations. The weighted-average dumping margins are listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice. Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The product covered by the
All arguments raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are listed in the appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai) and POSCO/POSCO International Corporation (POSCO). For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
For these final results, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for Hyundai and POSCO that are zero percent, and we have assigned this zero percent rate to the company not individually examined in this review (
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where the respondent did not report entered value, we calculated the entered value in order to calculate the assessment rate. Where the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or
6, 2003).
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
Commerce is issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Request for information.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is developing a framework that can be used to improve the management of risks to individuals, organizations, and society associated with artificial intelligence (AI). The NIST Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF or Framework) is intended for voluntary use and to improve the ability to incorporate trustworthiness considerations into the design, development, and use, and evaluation of AI products, services, and systems. This notice requests information to help inform, refine, and guide the development of the AI RMF. The Framework will be developed through a consensus-driven, open, and collaborative process that will include public workshops and other opportunities for stakeholders to provide input.
Comments in response to this notice must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 19, 2021. Written comments in response to the RFI should be submitted according to the instructions in the
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
1. Go to
2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and
3. Enter or attach your comments.
•
Please submit comments only and include your name, organization's name (if any), and cite “AI Risk Management Framework” in all correspondence.
For questions about this RFI contact: Mark Przybocki (
Direct media inquiries to NIST's Office of Public Affairs at (301) 975-2762. Users of telecommunication devices for the deaf, or a text telephone, may call the Federal Relay Service, toll free at 1-800-877-8339.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming our world.
Surges in AI capabilities have led to a wide range of innovations. These new AI-enabled systems are benefitting many parts of society and economy from commerce and healthcare to transportation and cybersecurity. At the same time, new AI-based technologies, products, and services bring technical and societal challenges and risks, including ensuring that AI comports with ethical values. While there is no objective standard for ethical values, as they are grounded in the norms and legal expectations of specific societies or cultures, it is widely agreed that AI must be designed, developed, used, and evaluated in a trustworthy and responsible manner to foster public confidence and trust. Trust is established by ensuring that AI systems are cognizant of and are built to align with core values in society, and in ways
Defining trustworthiness in meaningful, actionable, and testable ways remains a work in progress. Inside and outside the United States there are diverse views about what that entails, including who is responsible for instilling trustworthiness during the stages of design, development,use, and evaluation. There also are different ideas about how to assure conformity with principles and characteristics of AI trustworthiness.
NIST is among the institutions addressing these issues. NIST aims to cultivate the public's trust in the design, development, use, and evaluation of AI technologies and systems in ways that enhance economic security, and improve quality of life. NIST focuses on improving measurement science, standards, technology, and related tools, including evaluation and data. NIST is developing forward-thinking approaches that support innovation and confidence in AI systems. The agency's work on an AI RMF is consistent with recommendations by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence
Congress has directed NIST to collaborate with the private and public sectors to develop a voluntary AI RMF.
The Framework aims to foster the development of innovative approaches to address characteristics of trustworthiness including accuracy, explainability and interpretability, reliability, privacy, robustness, safety, security (resilience), and mitigation of unintended and/or harmful bias, as well as of harmful uses. The Framework should consider and encompass principles such as transparency, fairness, and accountability during design, deployment, use, and evaluation of AI technologies and systems. With broad and complex uses of AI, the Framework should consider risks from unintentional, unanticipated, or harmful outcomes that arise from intended uses, secondary uses, and misuses of the AI. These characteristics and principles are generally considered as contributing to the trustworthiness of AI technologies and systems, products, and services. NIST is interested in whether stakeholders define or use other characteristics and principles.
Among other purposes, the AI RMF is intended to be a tool that would complement and assist with broader aspects of enterprise risk management which could affect individuals, groups, organizations, or society.
NIST is soliciting input from all interested stakeholders, seeking to understand how individuals, groups and organizations involved with designing, developing, using, or evaluating AI systems might be better able to address the full scope of AI risk and how a framework for managing AI risks might be constructed. Stakeholders include but are not limited to industry, civil society groups, academic institutions, federal agencies, state, local, territorial, tribal, and foreign governments, standards developing organizations and researchers.
NIST intends the Framework to provide a prioritized, flexible, risk-based, outcome-focused, and cost-effective approach that is useful to the community of AI designers, developers, users, evaluators, and other decision makers and is likely to be widely adopted. The Framework's development process will involve several iterations to encourage robust and continuing engagement and collaboration with interested stakeholders. This will include open, public workshops, along with other forms of outreach and feedback. This RFI is an important part of that process.
NIST believes that the AI RMF should have the following attributes:
1. Be consensus-driven and developed and regularly updated through an open, transparent process. All stakeholders should have the opportunity to contribute to the Framework's development. NIST has a long track record of successfully and collaboratively working with a range of stakeholders to develop standards and guidelines. NIST will model its approach on the open, transparent, and collaborative approaches used to develop the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (“Cybersecurity Framework”)
2. Provide common definitions. The Framework should provide definitions and characterizations for aspects of AI risk and trustworthiness that are common and relevant across all sectors. The Framework should establish common AI risk taxonomy, terminology, and agreed-upon definitions, including that of trust and trustworthiness.
3. Use plain language that is understandable by a broad audience, including senior executives and those who are not AI professionals, while still of sufficient technical depth to be useful to practitioners across many domains.
4. Be adaptable to many different organizations, AI technologies, lifecycle phases, sectors, and uses. The Framework should be scalable to organizations of all sizes, public or private, in any sector, and operating within or across domestic borders. It should be platform- and technology- agnostic and customizable. It should meet the needs of AI designers, developers, users, and evaluators alike.
5. Be risk-based, outcome-focused, voluntary, and non-prescriptive. The Framework should focus on the value of trustworthiness and related needs, capabilities, and outcomes. It should provide a catalog of outcomes and approaches to be used voluntarily, rather than a set of one-size-fits-all requirements, in order to: Foster innovation in design, development, use and evaluation of trustworthy and responsible AI systems; inform education and workforce development; and promote research on and adoption of effective solutions. The Framework should assist those designing, developing, using, and evaluating AI to
6. Be readily usable as part of any enterprise's broader risk management strategy and processes.
7. Be consistent, to the extent possible, with other approaches to managing AI risk. The Framework should, when possible, take advantage of and provide greater awareness of existing standards, guidelines, best practices, methodologies, and tools for managing AI risks whether presented as frameworks or in other formats. It should be law- and regulation-agnostic to support organizations' ability to operate under applicable domestic and international legal or regulatory regimes.
8. Be a living document. The Framework should be capable of being readily updated as technology, understanding, and approaches to AI trustworthiness and uses of AI change and as stakeholders learn from implementing AI risk management. NIST expects there may be aspects of AI trustworthiness that are not sufficiently developed for inclusion in the initial Framework.
As noted below, NIST solicits comments on these and potentially other desired attributes of an AI RMF, as well as on high-priority gaps in organizations' ability to manage AI risks.
This RFI invites stakeholders to submit ideas, based on their experience as well as their research, to assist in prioritizing elements and development of the AI RMF. Stakeholders include but are not limited to industry, civil society groups, academic institutions, federal agencies, state, local, territorial, tribal, and foreign governments, standards developing organizations and researchers. The Framework is intended to address AI risk management related to individuals, groups or organizations involved in the design, development, use, and evaluation of AI systems.
The goals of the Framework development process, generally, and this RFI, specifically, are to:
1. Identify and better understand common challenges in the design, development, use, and evaluation of AI systems that might be addressed through a voluntary Framework;
2. gain a greater awareness about the extent to which organizations are identifying, assessing, prioritizing, responding to, and communicating AI risk or have incorporated AI risk management standards, guidelines, and best practices, into their policies and practices; and
3. specify high-priority gaps for which guidelines, best practices, and new or revised standards are needed and could be addressed by the AI RMF—or which would require further understanding, research, and development.
When addressing the topics below, respondents may describe the practices of their organization or organizations with which they are familiar. They also may provide information about the type, size, and location of those organization(s) if they desire. Providing such information is optional and will not affect NIST's full consideration of the comment. Respondents are encouraged to provide generalized information based on research and potential practices as well as on current approaches and activities.
Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published (
Personally identifiable information (PII), such as street addresses, phone numbers, account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, should not be included. NIST asks commenters to avoid including PII as NIST has no plans to redact PII from comments. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. Comments that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language or content will not be considered. NIST requests that commenters, to the best of their ability, only submit attachments that are accessible to people who rely upon assistive technology. A good resource for document accessibility can be found at:
The following statements are not intended to limit the topics that may be addressed. Responses may include any topic believed to have implications for the development of an AI RMF, regardless of whether the topic is included in this document. All relevant responses that comply with the requirements listed in the
NIST is requesting information related to the following topics:
1. The greatest challenges in improving how AI actors manage AI-related risks—where “manage” means identify, assess, prioritize, respond to, or communicate those risks;
2. How organizations currently define and manage characteristics of AI trustworthiness and whether there are important characteristics which should be considered in the Framework besides: Accuracy, explainability and interpretability, reliability, privacy, robustness, safety, security (resilience), and mitigation of harmful bias, or harmful outcomes from misuse of the AI;
3. How organizations currently define and manage principles of AI trustworthiness and whether there are important principles which should be considered in the Framework besides: Transparency, fairness, and accountability;
4. The extent to which AI risks are incorporated into different organizations' overarching enterprise risk management—including, but not limited to, the management of risks related to cybersecurity, privacy, and safety;
5. Standards, frameworks, models, methodologies, tools, guidelines and best practices, and principles to identify, assess, prioritize, mitigate, or communicate AI risk and whether any currently meet the minimum attributes described above;
6. How current regulatory or regulatory reporting requirements (
7. AI risk management standards, frameworks, models, methodologies, tools, guidelines and best practices, principles, and practices which NIST should consider to ensure that the AI RMF aligns with and supports other efforts;
8. How organizations take into account benefits and issues related to inclusiveness in AI design, development, use and evaluation—and how AI design and development may be carried out in a way that reduces or manages the risk of potential negative impact on individuals, groups, and society.
9. The appropriateness of the attributes NIST has developed for the AI Risk Management Framework. (See above, “AI RMF Development and Attributes”);
10. Effective ways to structure the Framework to achieve the desired goals, including, but not limited to, integrating AI risk management processes with organizational processes for developing products and services for better outcomes in terms of trustworthiness and management of AI risks. Respondents are asked to identify any current models which would be effective. These could include—but are not limited to—the NIST Cybersecurity Framework or Privacy Framework, which focus on outcomes, functions, categories and subcategories and also offer options for developing profiles reflecting current and desired approaches as well as tiers to describe degree of framework implementation; and
11. How the Framework could be developed to advance the recruitment, hiring, development, and retention of a knowledgeable and skilled workforce necessary to perform AI-related functions within organizations.
12. The extent to which the Framework should include governance issues, including but not limited to make up of design and development teams, monitoring and evaluation, and grievance and redress.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
Under the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announces the establishment of a laboratory accreditation program and the availability of applications for accreditation of laboratories that perform System Integration Testing (SIT) and Operational/User Acceptance Testing (O/UAT) on Federal Warfare Systems.
Laboratories may obtain NIST Handbook 150,
Brad Moore, Program Manager, NIST/NVLAP, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, Phone: (301) 975-5740 or email:
Information regarding NVLAP and the accreditation process can be obtained from
In response to the need for an improved capability to protype and experiment prior to generating requirements, the U-2 Federal Laboratory was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3710 and 10 U.S.C. § 2500. The U-2 Federal Laboratory's mission is to “[f]ast-field advanced technologies at a speed relevant to the warfighter,” in accordance with House Report 115-676 (2018)
On May 7, 2019, the U-2 Federal Laboratory formally requested in writing the Chief of NVLAP consider the establishment of a proposed new Laboratory Accreditation Program (LAP) entitled, “Federal Warfare System(s) LAP,” in accordance with NIST Handbook 150 Para 2.1.3. In compliance with NVLAP procedures (15 CFR part 285), NVLAP held a public workshop on November 19, 2019 to solicit further comments on the establishment of a Federal Warfare System(s) LAP and on the technical requirements to be associated with the LAP.
Under the framework of the Federal Warfare Systems Laboratory, advanced technologies can be developed or integrated to determine technical feasibility (“Is it possible?”). Embedded developers then hand the technology to the end-user (“Warfighter”) to determine operational utility (“Is it useful?”). This process continuously cycles between development and operations. The desired outcome is achieved when the technology has evolved to a high-Technology Readiness Level (TRL), Warfighter-useful solution. At this point, the technology generally transitions into the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System and Defense Acquisition System (DoD Directive 5000.01 and DoD Instruction 5000.02) as a vetted, mature requirement. In this way, the acquisitions process is meaningfully compressed, and cost offsets realized, by (a) front-loading development with the end-user and (b) abating the problems of scope, understanding, and volatility associated with the requirement development process. Importantly, establishment of this LAP affords a means to standardize the traceability, competence, impartiality, and operational consistency of Federal Laboratories supporting warfare systems within the Department of Defense, as well as a means to meet a 2018 National Defense Strategy mandate that, “prototyping and experimentation should be used prior to defining requirements.”
The U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command (ACC) Office of the Chief Scientist is considering a command-wide plan for adoption of the Federal Warfare System Laboratory construct. Interest in this concept has also been expressed by senior military leaders.
Based on careful analysis of comments received during the public workshop and a review of the Secretary of Defense's strategies, instructions, and mandates, the Chief of NVLAP has determined that the establishment of a LAP for laboratories conducting SIT and O/UAT on Federal Warfare Systems best meets government needs.
This notice is issued in accordance with NVLAP procedures and general requirements, found in 15 CFR part 285.
NVLAP provides an unbiased, third-party evaluation and recognition of competence. NVLAP accreditation signifies that a laboratory has
NVLAP accreditation does not imply any guarantee (certification) of laboratory performance or test/calibration data. NVLAP accreditation is a finding of laboratory competence.
Technical Requirements for the Accreditation Process: NVLAP assessments are conducted in accordance with the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program regulations, which are found at 15 CFR part 285. NVLAP accreditation is in full conformance with relevant standards of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), including ISO/IEC 17025,
Accreditation is granted to a laboratory following successful completion of a process, which includes submission of an application and payment of fees by the laboratory, a review of the laboratory management system documentation, an on-site assessment by technical experts, participation in proficiency testing when available, and resolution of any management system or technical nonconformities identified during any phase of the application process. The accreditation is formalized through issuance of a Certificate of Accreditation and Scope of Accreditation.
General requirements for accreditation are given in NIST Handbook 150,
Application Requirements include: (1) Legal name and full address of the laboratory; (2) Ownership of the laboratory; (3) Authorized Representative's name and contact information; (4) Names, titles, and contact information for laboratory staff nominated to serve as Approved Signatories of test and calibration reports that reference NVLAP accreditation; (5) Organization chart defining relationships that are relevant to performing testing and calibrations covered in the accreditation request; (6) General description of laboratory, including its facilities and scope of operations; and (7) Requested scope and accreditation.
For this program, the laboratory shall provide a copy of its management system documents prior to the on-site assessment. NVLAP will review the management system documentation and discuss any nonconformities with the Authorized Representative before the on-site visit. Laboratories that apply for accreditation will be required to pay NVLAP fees and undergo on-site assessment and shall meet proficiency testing requirements before initial accreditation can be granted.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 27, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to CAPT Edward J. Van Den Ameele, Chief, Marine Chart Division, 1315 East-West Highway, N/CS 2, Silver Spring, MD 20910, (240) 431-1030,
This request is for a revision and extension of a currently approved information collection.
The National Ocean Service (NOS) Office of Coast Survey manages the Certification Requirements for Distributors of NOAA Electronic Navigational Charts (NOAA ENCs®). Electronic Navigational Charts (ENC) are vector data sets that support all types of marine navigation. Originally designed
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 15 CFR part 995 form the basis for this collection of information. This information allows the Office of Coast Survey to administer the regulation, and to better understand the marketplace resulting in products to that meet the needs of the customer in a timely and efficient manner.
Responses from the Certified ENC Distributors are all electronic and sent via email. All distributors have an Excel spreadsheet which they submit for each quarter.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of 23 scientific research permits.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has issued 23 scientific research permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to the individuals and organizations listed in Table 1. The research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the ESA and to help guide management and conservation efforts.
Permits and related documents are available for review upon written request via email to
Rob Clapp, Portland, OR (phone: 503-231-2314), fax: 503-230-5441, email:
Table 1 provides a list of notifications for requests for permits and permit modifications and the submitting applicants that were published in the
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) joint Advisory Panel (AP) meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting with chairs, vice chairs, and other representatives of their Dolphin Wahoo, Mackerel Cobia, Snapper Grouper, and Spiny Lobster APs to discuss the draft Allocation Decision Tree Blueprint.
The meeting will be held via webinar on August 17, 2021, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m.
Christina Wiegand, Fishery Social Scientist, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The AP members will meet via webinar. The AP members will review the draft Allocation Decision Tree Blueprint, which aims to help the Council incorporate other sources of information, in addition to landings, when making sector allocations. The Blueprint proposes an objective and organized approach to allocations that helps determine salient issues to consider when discussing sector allocations. The AP will provide recommendations for Council consideration as appropriate.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of a currently approved collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 27, 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 Sarah Newman, 202-453-6956.
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.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 27, 2021.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, (202) 377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Finance and Operations, Department of Education.
Notice of availability—FY 2019 service contract inventory.
Through this notice, the Secretary announces the availability of the Department of Education's service contract inventory for FY 2019 on its website, at
Nathan Watters, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Finance and Operations, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-6942. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, Public Law 111-117, requires civilian agencies, other than the Department of Defense,
Through this notice, the Department announces the availability of its inventory for FY 2019 on the following website:
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Tuesday, August 24, 2021; 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
This meeting is open to the public. This meeting will be held digitally via Zoom. Information to participate can be found on the website closer to the meeting date at:
Kerry Hochberger; Office of Basic Energy Sciences; U.S. Department of Energy; Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (301) 903-7661 or email:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC's (Atlantic) Atlantic Coast Pipeline Restoration Project, and Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc.'s (EGTS) Supply Header Restoration Project (Restoration Projects), in the above-referenced dockets. Atlantic and EGTS request authorization to implement the Restoration Projects in order to stabilize lands affected by previous construction efforts for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project, respectively, and to facilitate cessation of all project-related activities. Implementation of the plans is proposed because Atlantic and EGTS have cancelled their respective projects and do not intend to complete them.
The draft supplemental EIS assesses the potential impacts that would result
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the draft supplemental EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.
The draft supplemental EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the following activities:
• Atlantic proposes to leave all installed pipeline in place (approximately 31.4 miles of the pipeline right-of-way), restore lands that were cleared and graded (approximately 82.7 miles of the pipeline right-of-way), and leave felled trees in place in areas where trees have not yet been cleared (approximately 25.2 miles of the pipeline right-of-way). For aboveground facilities, Atlantic proposes to restore the sites and manage the disposition of the materials and land through an investment recovery process. Workspace for these activities would occur in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina.
• EGTS proposes to leave all installed pipeline in place (approximately 11.7 miles), leave approximately 0.13 mile of felled trees in place, and complete final restoration of approximately 9 miles of the pipeline right-of-way that EGTS previously cleared and/or graded. EGTS proposes to stabilize all aboveground facility sites and prepare assets for long term preservation. Workspace for these activities would occur in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The draft EIS is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the draft supplemental EIS may do so. Your comments should focus on the EIS's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final supplemental EIS, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 13, 2021.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number CP15-554-009 and/or CP15-555-007. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the proposals is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that on July 16, 2021, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in the above referenced docket a prior notice pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.213 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000 requesting authorization to construct and operate: (1) Two injection/withdrawal (I/W) wells at its Lucas Storage Field; (2) one I/W well at its Pavonia Storage Field; and (3) related pipeline and appurtenances for each well, all located in Ashland and Richland Counties, Ohio. Columbia states that the new wells are designed to maintain reliability and overall storage field performance. Columbia asserts that there will be no change to either storage field's certificated physical parameters, including total inventory reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer boundaries, and certificated capacity. Columbia estimates the cost of the project to be approximately $15 million, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions concerning this application should be directed to David A. Alonzo, Manager, Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by phone at (832) 320-5477 or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: You can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 21, 2021. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before September 21, 2021. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-473-000 in your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
The Commission's eFiling staff are available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP21-473-000.
To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at:
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final order on petition for objection to Clean Air Act title V operating permit.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an Order dated June 30, 2021, granting a Petition dated January 16, 2018 from the Environmental Integrity Project and Sierra Club. The Petition requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to Sandy Creek Services LLC (Sandy Creek) for its Sandy Creek Energy Station located in McLennan County, Texas.
The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the
Aimee Wilson, EPA Region 6 Office, Air Permits Section, (214) 665-7596,
The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the 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 unless the grounds for the issue arose after this period.
The EPA received the Petition from the Environmental Integrity Project and Sierra Club dated January 16, 2018, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. O3336, issued by TCEQ to the Sandy Creek Energy Station in McLennan County, Texas. The Petition claims the proposed permit failed to incorporate certified permits by rule (PBR) registrations as applicable requirements, and fails to include monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that assure compliance with incorporated PBRs.
On June 30, 2021, the EPA Administrator issued an Order granting the Petition. The Order explains the basis for EPA's decision.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the “Information Collection Request (ICR) Supporting Statement for The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 0229.25, OMB Control No. 2040-0004) 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 March 31, 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 27, 2021.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
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.
Joshua Baehr, National Program Branch, Water Permits Division, OWM Mail Code: 4203M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2277; 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 Paperwork Reduction Act (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,
The Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that NPDES permits are required for the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. The CWA requires EPA to develop and implement the NPDES permit program. CWA section 402(b) allows states to acquire authority to administer the NPDES program, enabling them to issue NPDES permits for discharges within the state. At present, 47 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands are authorized to administer the NPDES permit program. In states that do not have authority for these programs, the Agency administers the program and issues NPDES permits. Because some permit applications are processed by states and some by EPA, this ICR calculates government burden and cost for both authorized states and EPA. See Appendix F.1 for a copy of the authorizing regulation.
• This ICR eliminates the initial permit application and compliance activities for existing Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) facilities as these activities have been completed by all existing CWIS facilities, resulting in a decrease in estimated burden hours for CWIS facilities.
• The collection burden associated with compliance with and administration of small vessels general permit (sVGP) has been removed. Eliminating the sVGP also decreased the number of vessel respondents significantly.
• The estimated number of respondents in some of the categories (shown in Appendix D of the ICR Supporting Statement) both increased and decreased per the current NPDES Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS-NPDES) database and based on refined EPA estimates.
• This ICR accounts for adjustments to inflation to September 2021 dollars that updated the presumed capital and O&M cost burden.
• The burden associated with Electronic Reporting Rule Phase I implementation activities has been removed. This includes the burden associated with Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) mailing by permittees, and all state and federal DMR processing previously included in the ICR.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA or the Act), notice is given of a proposed consent decree in
Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0444, online at
EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information from the CDC, local area health departments, and our federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
Rosemary E. Hambright, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 564-8829; email address
The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0444) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree.
The electronic version of the public docket for this action contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through
The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to take action pursuant to CAA section 110(k) on certain SIP submissions addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (the good neighbor provision), to resolve a lawsuit filed by the States of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, and the City of New York. Pursuant to CAA section 110(k), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k), SIP submission are deemed complete by operation of law 6 months after receipt by EPA. EPA must approve or disapprove, in whole or in a part, SIP submissions within 12 months of being deemed complete.
The proposed consent decree would require the EPA, pursuant to CAA sections 110(k)(2)-(4), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(2)-(4), to take final action to approve or disapprove, in whole or in part, the portion of six 2015 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions addressing the good neighbor provision from the States of Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia. EPA received the good neighbor SIP submissions at issue on the following dates: Indiana on November 2, 2018, Kentucky on January 9, 2019, Michigan on March 8, 2019,
Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, no later than April 30, 2022, EPA shall sign a final rule to approve, disapprove, conditionally approve, or approve in part and conditionally approve or disapprove in part, the 2015 ozone NAAQS good neighbor SIP submissions from Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia. However, under the proposed consent decree, if, by February 28, 2022, EPA signs a proposal of full or partial disapproval of any of the six good neighbor SIP submissions and signs a proposal for a federal implementation plan to implement any such fully or partially disapproved SIP submission, EPA shall have until December 15, 2022, to sign a final action to approve, disapprove, conditionally approve, or approve in part and conditionally approve or disapprove in part, each such good neighbor SIP submission.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2021-0444, via
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
In the document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes drive test parameters and a drive test model required of two Alaska Plan mobile-provider participants: General Communication Inc. (GCI) and Copper Valley Wireless. The Bureau seeks comment on these proposals and on any alternatives that it should consider.
Comments are due on or before August 12, 2021. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact listed in the following as soon as possible.
Interested parties may file comments on or before the date indicated above and must reference WC Docket No. 16-271. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
•
•
• Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Matthew Warner of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Competition & Infrastructure Policy Division,
This is a summary of the Bureau's Alaska Plan Drive Test Public Notice, adopted on July 19, 2021, and released on July 19, 2021. The full text of this document is available for public inspection on the Commission's website at:
By this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment on proposed drive test parameters and a model for the drive tests required of certain mobile providers participating in the Alaska Plan.
The Commission adopted the Alaska Plan Order in 2016 to address both fixed and mobile voice and broadband service in high-cost areas of the state of Alaska. Eight mobile providers chose to participate in the Alaska Plan and submitted performance plans in which they committed to specific deployment obligations and performance requirements sufficient to demonstrate that Alaska Plan support would be used in the public interest. In the performance plans, providers committed to cover a specified number of people by five-year (December 31, 2021) and 10-year (December 31, 2026) milestones at a specified minimum speed, broken down by each level of wireless service offered (2G/Voice, 3G, and 4G LTE) and each type of middle mile facility used in connection with the deployed mobile technology. Each participant must certify that it has met the reporting milestones, including minimum download and upload speeds set forth in its approved performance plans.
In addition, participants that receive more than $5 million annually in Alaska Plan support must supplement these certifications with “data received or used from drive tests analyzing network coverage for mobile service covering the population for which support was received and showing mobile transmissions to and from the . . . network meeting or exceeding the minimum expected download and upload speeds delineated in the approved performance plan[s].” The Alaska Plan Order specifies that participants may demonstrate coverage of an area with a “statistically significant number of tests in the vicinity of residences being covered.” The Alaska Plan Order further specifies that, as with Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I, these drive tests may be conducted by means other than in automobiles on roads due to the unique terrain and lack of road networks in remote areas of Alaska. In the Alaska Plan Order, the Commission delegated to the Bureau the authority to “effectuate plan implementation and administration,” including by “requir[ing] additional information . . . from individual participants that it deems necessary to establish clear standards for determining whether or not they meet their five- and 10-year commitments.” Drive test results confirming qualifying participants' performance commitments for the five-year milestone are due by March 1, 2022.
Two participants meet the trigger for the drive test requirement: GCI and Copper Valley Wireless. Consistent with the Alaska Plan Order's delegation of authority, we propose drive test parameters and a drive test model to ensure that GCI's and Copper Valley Wireless's drive tests allow the Commission to determine whether the carriers met their five-year commitments. Appendix A lists the data that we propose to require the carriers to collect during the drive tests and the format in which we propose it be reported. The parameters listed in Appendix A are consistent with requirements the Commission has established for mobile speed test data collected in other contexts, and we anticipate that these categories of data will allow the Bureau to evaluate whether GCI and Copper Valley Wireless have met their deployment benchmarks. Appendix B sets forth a drive test model that would help to ensure that the two carriers conduct a “statistically significant number of tests in the vicinity of residences being covered.” This proposal uses stratified random sampling to provide the carriers with locations to test within a grid system of their reported coverage areas. A confidence interval would be constructed around the drive test results to verify that a provider's commitments have been met or determine the percentage by which the carrier's coverage has failed to meet its commitment.
We seek comment on these proposals and on any alternatives that we should consider. Given that this Public Notice only affects two Alaska Plan participants, both of whom have been informed of this action and have indicated a desire to begin testing as soon as possible to maximize their ability to conduct drive testing during less adverse weather conditions, we find that a 14-day comment period will allow sufficient opportunity for public input and accordingly waive the default reply comment period.
The Alaska Plan requires certain plan participants to conduct and report speed tests of their networks, as described in this PN and appendices. Appendix A describes the data to be collected and the format in which it is to be reported.
This section details the data structure common for all mobile speed test data in the Alaska Plan. This file contains records of each mobile speed test in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format matching the specification in the table and sections below:
Each element of the “locations” array contains the geographic coordinates of the locations measured at the start and end of the speed test, as well as during the test (if measured).
Each element of the “cells” array contains telephony information about the cell/carrier.
This technical appendix provides information about the proposed mobile certification process for Alaska Plan providers subject to drive testing. The Alaska Plan requires such testing to include “a statistically significant number of tests in the vicinity of residences being covered” to demonstrate that plan participants have met the commitments in the performance plans approved by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau).
Remote Alaska is extraordinarily sparsely populated; virtually all its county-level geographies have population densities of three or fewer people per square mile. Accordingly, testing every location for a provider's coverage would be unduly burdensome, and testing a sample of locations is required.
For the sampling required to implement the testing procedures under the Alaska Plan, staff proposes to use stratified random sampling. When properly implemented, this sampling methodology can achieve an optimal balance between the statistical significance required by the Alaska Plan and the burden on providers to conduct
The following sections describe the details of the proposed testing process. These technical details serve as a guide to both the Bureau and the providers doing the testing in determining:
• Where, within the geographic boundaries of the coverage map, a provider should conduct testing;
• how many locations a provider must test;
• what speed test measurements will be accepted for staff analysis by the Bureau; and
• how Bureau staff will evaluate the test data and adjudicate whether the provider has passed or failed the testing process.
To select locations for testing, one must first construct a list (known as a “sampling frame” or “frame”) of possible locations to select from. The construction of this frame is a multi-part process. First, we propose creating a set of “eligible populated areas.” Census blocks eligible for frozen-support funding would be included, and these census blocks would be merged with the populated areas of the Alaska Population Distribution model. Second, the Form 477 reported coverage for which a provider committed to deploy subject to testing would be merged with the eligible populated areas to create a set of “covered populated areas.” Third, a grid of 1 km x 1 km squares would be overlaid onto the covered populated areas.
For commitments that do not promise different speeds for different middle-mile technologies, the frame would utilize the most recent Form 477 submissions from the provider, which currently is the provider's deployment data as of December 2020. For areas served by more than one technology, the area would only be included in the frame for the latest generation technology. For example, if an area is covered by both 2G and 3G, then the area would only be included in the 3G frame. As no commitments were made for 5G service, any 5G coverage will be included within the LTE frame. Where a provider has committed to different speeds in different areas due to different middle-mile technologies, the frame would rely on additional data submitted by the provider to differentiate the covered areas of a given technology (
If a provider wishes to submit data that better reflects the December 2021 Form 477 data that it is likely to submit in March 2022 than the December 2020 data that the Commission currently has, then it should notify the Bureau within the Public Notice comment cycle and submit the updated coverage data within 10 days of the adoption of the Order. The Bureau will create a stratified random sample for the provider to test within 15 days of receipt of updated data, or, in the event of no new data submitted, 10 days of the adoption of an Order.
Frame stratification is the process of dividing a frame into subsets of similar characteristics, called strata. This methodology allows fewer grid cells to be selected for testing while producing the same level of accuracy as sampling the entire frame, thus reducing testing burden.
The number of strata for each frame depends on the number of grid cells in a given frame. To create the strata, the Bureau proposes to use the cumulative square root of the frequency (CSRF) method, based on grid-level estimates of covered population. CSRF is a standard stratification method used to define the breaks between strata. It creates equal intervals not on the scale along the stratification variable (in this case, covered population) scale, but rather on the scale along the cumulated square root of the count (frequency) of grid cells belonging to equal intervals of the stratification variable.
Based on the data staff currently has, it is expected that each frame will contain between two and eight strata. Staff analysis has found that this stratification method produces strata of more equal sizes than other potential stratification methods (
Further, staff proposes to select certain grid cells with probability 1 (grid cells that are called certainties) within each stratum. This ensures that grid cells that have a high population within a given stratum are tested; this should prevent the testing results of the stratum from being skewed by outlier results from low-weighted grid cells.
The Bureau proposes to decide the number of grid cells that the provider has to test (that is, the sample size,
Let
Guided by the allocation scheme from the previous section, staff proposes to use geographic information systems (GIS) tools to randomly select grid cells in each stratum, including options within these tools that ensure geographic dispersion for selected grid cells within a stratum. The provider subject to testing would then be notified of the sample grid cells in which it would be required to conduct on-the-ground speed tests.
We propose that, within each selected grid cell, a carrier would conduct a minimum of 20 tests, no less than 50% of which are to be conducted while in-motion from a vehicle. This is the minimum number of tests to support the use of the binomial distribution to approximate the normal distribution that is needed in calculating the gap in coverage based on a one-sided 90% confidence interval, as discussed later in Section VII.
To be considered valid, each test should be conducted between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10 p.m., within the selected grid cell, and report all relevant parameters defined in Appendix A. Each component of a test (
Upon receipt of drive testing submissions, the Bureau will perform a statistical analysis of the data to estimate the desired total population covered. Because the sample is selected using stratified random sampling, estimation techniques appropriate for this particular sampling method must be used.
Stratified random sampling requires an aggregate measurement from a sampled grid cell that will be combined with measurements from the other sampled grid cells to calculate stratum-level estimates of total covered population. These estimates will, in turn, be combined to produce an overall estimate of covered population. Drive tests conducted in a sample grid cell will be aggregated based on the following rule:
Let
To calculate the stratum-level estimates and the overall estimate of the covered population, the Bureau proposes to use the estimation method appropriate for stratified random sampling, described next.
To more accurately reflect coverage at the time of deployment and to fulfill the Alaska Plan's requirement to evaluate a provider's commitments based on December 2021 Form 477 coverage data, we propose to adjust the covered population of the sample frames
Finally, the overall covered population total, X
Because the estimate of the total covered population
Because the Alaska Plan calls for a tiered approach in levying penalties for providers failing the testing process, the Bureau proposes to use a one-sided 90% confidence interval for
The gap in coverage is then calculated as:
If the gap in coverage is no more than 5% of the total population of a given commitment, no penalties will apply. Otherwise, penalties will apply according to the tiers adopted by the Commission.
Additionally, it is possible to have a negative gap in coverage if the upper limit of the confidence interval is greater than the total committed population. If a provider has committed to multiple tiers of technology (
Gap in Coverage = Total Population Coverage Commitment−(
This methodology therefore will not punish carriers for improving coverage beyond what they committed.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission grants a motion for extension of time in the 2018 Quadrennial Review record update to extend the comment and reply comment deadlines.
Ty Bream, Media Bureau, Industry Analysis Division,
This is a summary of the Media Bureau's Public Notice in MB Docket No. 18-349, DA 21-851, that was released on July 16, 2021. The complete text of this document is available electronically via the search function on the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) web page at
1. By this Public Notice, the Media Bureau extends the deadlines for filing comments and reply comments in the above-captioned proceeding. On June 4, 2021, the Media Bureau released a Public Notice, 86 FR 35089 (July 1, 2021), seeking to update the record in the 2018 Quadrennial Review proceeding, in which the Commission has sought comment, pursuant to its obligation under Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, on whether its media ownership rules remain “necessary in the public interest
2. On July 12, 2021, Common Cause, Free Press, the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC), the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters (NABOB), and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) (collectively, Joint Filers) requested an extension of the comment and reply comment filing deadlines until September 2 and October 1, 2021, respectively. The Joint Filers explain that, as more than two years have passed since the original comment cycle in this proceeding was completed, there have been many economic and legal developments in the media industry in that time. The Joint Filers state that they and other interested parties need additional time to address the many complex economic and legal issues through research, updates to previously filed material, and new information.
3. As set forth in section 1.46(a) of the Commission's rules, the Commission's policy is that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted. We find, however, that the Joint Filers have set forth a sufficient justification to warrant grant of their requested extension. As an extension should enable interested parties to present more complete and thoughtful comments to the Commission, we agree with the Joint Filers that both the parties commenting in the proceeding and the Commission should benefit and that the extension should not disadvantage any party. Accordingly, we grant the Joint Filers' request and extend the comment and reply comment deadlines by approximately a month, until September 2, 2021, and October 1, 2021, respectively.
4. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Ty Bream,
Federal Communications Commission
Notice of a new system of records.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC, Commission, or Agency) proposes to add a new system of records, FCC-2, Business Contacts and Certifications, subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This action is necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act to publish in the
This system of records will become effective on July 29, 2021. Written comments on the routine uses are due by August 30, 2021. The routine uses will become effective on August 30, 2021, unless written comments are received that require a contrary determination.
Send comments to Margaret Drake, at
Margaret Drake, (202) 418-1707, or
Unclassified.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554; Universal Service Administrative Company, 700 12th Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005; or FISMA compliant contractor.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC); Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC); or FISMA compliant contractor.
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 155, 257, 303; and 5 U.S.C. 602(c) and 609(a)(3).
The FCC and organizations administering programs on behalf of the FCC use this system to collect and maintain points of contact at entities regulated by the FCC and in related industries, and ensure compliance with FCC rules through certifications of information provided to the Commission.
Individuals and businesses.
Contact information, such as name, username, signature, phone numbers, emails, and addresses, as well as work and educational history.
Information in this system is provided by individuals or businesses who serve as points of contact at regulated entities and in related industries or certify data on behalf of an entity.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside the FCC as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
1. Public Access—Information regarding points of contact at regulated entities and in related industries, as well as certifications made by individuals on behalf of an entity, may be made available for public inspection to comply with FCC regulations that require public disclosure of this information.
2. Third Parties—To third parties, including individuals and businesses in the communications industry, FCC vendors and their contractors, and other federal agencies to administer or support programs on behalf of the FCC.
3. Adjudication and Litigation—To disclose to the Department of Justice (DOJ), or to other administrative or adjudicative bodies before which the
4. Law Enforcement and Investigation—To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal agency, or component of an agency, such as the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, where the FCC becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.
5. Congressional Inquiries—To provide information to a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that Congressional office made at the written request of that individual.
6. Government-wide Program Management and Oversight—To provide information to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain that department's advice regarding disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act; or to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to obtain that office's advice regarding obligations under the Privacy Act.
7. Breach Notification—To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (a) The Commission suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of PII maintained in the system of records; (b) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Commission (including its information system, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
8. Assistance to Federal Agencies and Entities—To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Commission determines that information from this system is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in: (a) Responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, program, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
9. Non-Federal Personnel—To disclose information to non-federal personnel, including contractors, who have been engaged to assist the FCC in the performance of a contract service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other activity related to this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to perform their activity.
In each of these cases, the FCC will determine whether disclosure of the records is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
In addition to the routine uses cited above, the Commission may share information from this system of records with a consumer reporting agency regarding an individual who has not paid a valid and overdue debt owed to the Commission, following the procedures set out in the Debt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
This an electronic system of records that resides on the FCC's network, USAC's network, or on an FCC vendor's network.
Records in this system of records can be retrieved by any category field,
The information in this system is maintained and disposed of in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule 6.5, Item 020 (DAA-GRS-2017-0002-0002).
The electronic records, files, and data are stored within FCC, USAC, or a vendor's accreditation boundaries and maintained in a database housed in the FCC's, USAC's, or vendor's computer network databases. Access to the electronic files is restricted to authorized employees and contractors; and to IT staff, contractors, and vendors who maintain the IT networks and services. Other employees and contractors may be granted access on a need-to-know basis. The electronic files and records are protected by the FCC, USAC, and third-party privacy safeguards, a comprehensive and dynamic set of IT safety and security protocols and features that are designed to meet all Federal privacy standards, including those required by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Individuals wishing to request access to and/or amendment of records about themselves should follow the Notification Procedure below.
Individuals wishing to request access to and/or amendment of records about themselves should follow the Notification Procedure below.
Individuals wishing to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves may do so by writing
None.
This is a new system of records.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Bank Holding Company Applications and Notifications (FR Y-3, FR Y-3N, and FR Y-4; OMB No. 7100-0121). The revisions are applicable as of August 30, 2021.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
To the extent a respondent submits nonpublic commercial or financial information in connection with the FR Y-3, Y-3N, or Y-4, which is both customarily and actually treated as private by the respondent, the respondent may request confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the International Applications and Prior Notifications under Subparts A and C of Regulation K (FR K-1; OMB No. 7100-0107). The revisions are effective immediately.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
The applications and notifications comprising FR K-1 are required to obtain a benefit. Individual respondents may request that information submitted to the Board through the FR K-1 be kept confidential. If a respondent requests confidential treatment, the Board will determine whether the information is entitled to confidential treatment on a case-by-case basis. To the extent a respondent submits nonpublic commercial or financial information, which is both customarily and actually treated as private by the respondent, the respondent may request confidential treatment pursuant to exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Reporting and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Emergency Lending Under Section 13(3) (FR A; OMB No. 7100-0373). The FR A received a temporary six-month clearance on January 28, 2021. This action is to extend that clearance for three years.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the PRA to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
In addition to these certifications, the Board may establish additional certification requirements for an individual emergency lending facility. The second part of the FR A information collection, the FR A-2, pertains to reporting requirements associated with individual facilities that are related to requirements of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The third part of FR A, designated as the FR A-3, pertains to reporting requirements specific to the Main Street Expanded Loan Facility, the Main Street New Loan Facility, the Main Street Priority Loan Facility, the Nonprofit Organization Expanded Loan Facility, and the Nonprofit Organization New Loan Facility (collectively, the “Main Street Lending Program”). The fourth part of FR A, designated as the FR A-4, pertains to a disclosure requirement for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) borrowers seeking to reduce the calculation of existing outstanding and undrawn available debt to participate in the Main Street Lending Program.
The information collected under the FR A may be kept confidential under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, which protects commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential.
On March 2, 2020, the Board published a notice in the
Office of Mission Assurance, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an existing OMB information collection.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a previously approved information collection requirement regarding the collection of personal data for background investigations for childcare workers accessing GSA owned and leased controlled facilities.
Submit comments on or before: September 27, 2021.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to
If your comment cannot be submitted using
Mr. Phil Ahn, Security Officer, Office of Mission Assurance, GSA, by email at
Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12 “Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors” requires the implementation of a governmentwide standard for secure and reliable forms of identification for Federal employees and contractors. OMB's implementing instructions requires all contract employees requiring routine access to federally controlled facilities for greater than six (6) months to receive a background investigation. The minimum background investigation is Tier 1 and the Office of Personnel Management offers a Tier 1C for child care.
However, there is no requirement in the law or HSPD-12 that requires childcare employees to be subject to the Tier 1C since employees of childcare providers are neither government employees nor government contractors. The childcare providers are required to complete the criminal history background checks mandated in the Crime Control Act of 1990, Public Law 101-647, dated November 29, 1990, as amended by Public Law 102-190, dated December 5, 1991. These statutes require that each employee of a childcare center located in a Federal building or in leased space must undergo a background check.
According to GSA policy, childcare workers (as described above) will need to submit the following:
1. An original signed copy of a
2. Two sets of fingerprints on FBI Fingerprint Cards, for SF-87 and/or electronic prints from an enrollment center.
3. Electronically submit the e-qip (SF85) application for completion of the Tier 1C.
This is not a request to collect new information; this is a request to change the form that is currently being used to collect this information.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for nominations for proposed substances to be evaluated for Toxicological Profile development.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) within the Department of Health and Human Services is initiating the development of another set of Toxicological Profiles. This notice solicits public nominations of substances for ATSDR to evaluate for Toxicological Profile development. ATSDR will consider nominations from the Substance Priority List found at
Nominations from the Substance Priority List and/or additional substances must be received by August 30, 2021.
You may submit nominations, identified by Docket No. ATSDR-2021-0006 by any of the following methods:
•
•
For further information, please contact Kambria Haire, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Office of Innovation and Analytics, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE, Mail Stop S102-1, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027, Email:
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) [42 U.S.C. 9601
Substances to be evaluated for Toxicological Profile development: Each year, ATSDR develops a list of substances to be considered for Toxicological Profile development. The nomination process includes consideration of all substances on ATSDR's SPL, as well as other substances nominated by the public. For more information on ATSDR's SPL, visit
Submission of nominations for Toxicological Profile development: This notice invites voluntary public nominations for substances included on the SPL and for substances not listed on the SPL. When nominating a non-SPL substance, please include the rationale for the nomination. ATSDR will evaluate data and information associated with nominated substances and will determine the final list of substances to be chosen for Toxicological Profile development. Substances will be chosen according to ATSDR's specific guidelines for selection. These guidelines can be found in the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces the opening of a docket to obtain comments on drafts of six updated Toxicological Profiles: Acetone, Aldrin/Dieldrin, Chlorophenols, 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine, Disulfoton, and Pentachlorophenol.
Written comments must be received on or before October 27, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATSDR-2021-0005, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Kambria Haire, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Office of Innovation and Analytics, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE, Mail Stop S102-1, Atlanta, GA, 30329-4027, Email:
ATSDR has prepared drafts of six updated toxicological profiles based on availability of new health effects and other information since their initial release. All toxicological profiles issued as “Drafts for Public Comment” represent the result of ATSDR's evidence-based evaluations to provide important toxicological information on priority hazardous substances. ATSDR is seeking public comments and additional information or reports on studies about the health effects of these six substances for review and potential inclusion in the profiles. ATSDR considers key studies for these substances during the profile development process. This notice solicits any relevant, additional studies. ATSDR will evaluate the quality and relevance of such data or studies for possible inclusion in the profile.
Interested persons or organizations are invited to participate by submitting written views, information, 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
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) [42 U.S.C. 9601
In addition, CERCLA provides ATSDR with the authority to prepare toxicological profiles for substances not found on the SPL. CERCLA authorizes ATSDR to establish and maintain an inventory of literature, research, and studies on the health effects of toxic substances (CERCLA Section 104(i)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(1)(B)); to respond to requests for health consultations (CERCLA Section 104(i)(4); 42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(4)); and to support the site-specific response actions conducted by the agency. Public nominations for substances from the SPL (or other substances)for toxicological profile development were requested on April 18, 2018 (83FR17177-17178).
ATSDR has now prepared drafts of six updated toxicological profiles based on availability of new health effects and other information since their initial release.
The Draft Toxicological Profiles are available online at
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by August 30, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
2.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by August 30, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
• To provide a source of information from which selected measures can be publicly reported to beneficiaries to help them make informed decisions for outpatient surgery facility selection;
• To aid facilities with their internal quality improvement efforts and external benchmarking with other facilities; and
• To provide CMS with information for monitoring and public reporting purposes.
CMS established a reporting program in which ASCs and HOPDs can choose to participate in the survey and also choose whether or not to publicly report data. HOPD and ASC facilities that choose to participate contract with a CMS-approved, independent third-party survey vendor to implement the survey on their behalf and to submit the OAS
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by August 30, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at website address at:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
The goal of this umbrella data collection effort is to gather data via separate surveys on a variety of minority Medicare beneficiaries' experiences. Topics and questions of interest may ask about beneficiaries' communication with medical professionals, coordination of health care, experiences getting needed health care, and experiences with personal doctors and specialists. CMS OMH will compare survey data to benchmarks from the general population of Medicare beneficiaries while controlling for population characteristics, as appropriate.
Survey respondents will have the opportunity to respond to an MBECS survey via a self-administered web-based survey (also called computer-assisted web interview or CAWI). CAWI technology minimizes respondent burden by (1) automatically providing text fills within questions and handling skip patterns based on responses to each question; (2) allowing respondents to complete the survey at a convenient time; (3) allowing respondents to stop and re-enter the survey if needed; and (4) capturing data in real-time, thereby eliminating the need for manual data entry.
2.
The CDC has an information collection request (OMB Control Number 0920-1299) in order to collect laboratory data related to the COVID-19 Pandemic Response. The CMS package (ICR) is for laboratory implementation and CMS monitoring of compliance with the CMS-3401-IFC CLIA-certified laboratory reporting requirements.
The information collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) or its designee, such as a CMS agent or CMS approved laboratory accreditation organization, when conducting inspections will be used to determine a laboratory's compliance with the CLIA SARS-CoV-2 test result reporting requirements. During an on-site survey, the Condition-level laboratory requirement at 42 CFR 493.41and 493.1100(a) are assessed for compliance. The information is used by CMS in determining appropriate Civil Money Penalties (CMPs) when laboratories fail to report as required.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 30-Day notice collects comments on the information collection requirements related to the State Annual Long-Term Care Ombudsman Report-National Ombudsman Reporting System [OMB #0985-0005].
Submit written comments on the collection of information by August 30, 2021.
Submit written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Louise Ryan, Administration for Community Living, Washington, DC 20201, (206) 615-2299 or by email:
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is requesting approval to collect data for the State Annual Long-Term Care Ombudsman Report-National Ombudsman Reporting System [OMB #0985-0005]. This request covers minor changes and corrections to the current information collection, with a total of 11,154 annual burden hours. The data collection tool will enhance ACL's ability to understand and report on Long-Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO) program operations, experiences of long-term care facility residents and will reflect changes in LTCO program operations and long-term supports and services policies, research, and practices. States will continue to provide the following data and narrative information in the report:
1. Numbers and descriptions of cases filed and complaints made on behalf of long-term care facility residents to the statewide ombudsman program;
2. Major issues identified impacting on the quality of care and life of long-term care facility residents;
3. Statewide program operations;
4. Ombudsman activities in addition to complaint investigation; and
5. Organizational conflict of interest reporting as required by 45 CFR part 1324.21.
A notice was published in the
Two of the four respondents (Maryland Ombudsman program and the National Association of State Ombudsman Programs (NASOP)) recommended adding a new complaint code “infection control.”
ACL received the following comments and did not accept them for inclusion in NORS.
The Maryland Ombudsman proposed adding more detail and examples in the description fields in the following cells: S02, S06, S08, S09, S12.1, and S13 stating that this would give the State Ombudsman more guidance on how to approach the narratives and to help ensure greater consistency across the country.
The Maryland Ombudsman program also recommended the addition of a new complaint code in Facility Policies, Procedures and Practices (Code J) for emergency planning complaints. The Maryland Ombudsman program noted that there have been many instances of facilities needing to temporarily or permanently relocate residents for a variety of reasons from disasters to lack of appropriate staff in the building, facility closure, or the facility did not have an appropriate plan or did not have a plan at all.
One recommendation was to include the addition of a county field (
NASOP made recommendations to broaden the types of activities reported on systems issues work performed by the State Long-Term Ombudsman, the Office and local Ombudsman entities. NASOP asserts that this reporting element would provide needed depth and clarity about whether a State Long-Term Care Ombudsman has the necessary independence and resources to perform systems advocacy as required by the Older Americans Act. NASOP proposes that data collected as narrative examples of Systems Issues is insufficient and does not have practical utility without additional data collection to explain the scope of a state's work on systems advocacy. “By only collecting two examples of a systems issue from each state, ACL has no objective means of determining a state's compliance with the Act nor the independence of the Office. With our proposed addition data collection in Table 3, ACL will collect and provide the public with a more accurate picture of whether a state program is fulfilling the requirements of the Act.”
ACL estimates the burden associated with this collection of information as follows: Approximately 11,154 hours, with 52 state Ombudsman programs responding annually.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
Representatives of the Administration on Disabilities (AoD), Administration for Community Living (ACL), will be conducting a federal review of the Missouri Protection and Advocacy System (P&A) on September 13-17, 2021. AoD is soliciting comments from interested parties on your experiences with the program, and strategies employed by P&A in meeting the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families in Missouri. You are encouraged to share your experiences by way of email or telephone.
Comments must be submitted electronically or via telephone by September 22, 2021, 11:59 p.m. (EST) in order to be included in the final report.
Katherine Cargill-Willis, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Disabilities, 330 C Street SW, 1st Floor, Washington, DC 20201, 202-795-7322.
Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is withdrawing approval of 85 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) from multiple applicants. The applicants notified the Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.
Approval is withdrawn as of August 30, 2021.
Martha Nguyen, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1676, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6980,
The applicants listed in the table have informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the process described in § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated application under § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.
Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of August 30, 2021. Approval of each entire application is withdrawn, including any strengths and dosage forms inadvertently missing from the table. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the table that are in inventory on August 30, 2021 may continue to be dispensed until the inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first.
Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Rabies: Developing Monoclonal Antibody Cocktails for the Passive Immunization Component of Post-Exposure Prophylaxis.” The purpose of this draft guidance is to help sponsors in the development of anti-rabies virus monoclonal antibody (mAb) cocktails as an alternative to anti-rabies virus immunoglobulin (RIG) as the passive immunization component of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for the prevention of rabies when given immediately after contact with a rabid or possibly rabid animal.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 27, 2021 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Stephanie Troy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6381, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4656.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Rabies: Developing Monoclonal Antibody Cocktails for the Passive Immunization Component of Post-Exposure Prophylaxis.” The purpose of this draft guidance is to help sponsors in the development of anti-rabies virus mAb cocktails as an alternative to RIG as the passive immunization component of PEP for the prevention of rabies when given immediately after contact with a rabid or possibly rabid animal. Because of the unique complexities of drug development in this area, extensive discussion with multiple stakeholders has taken place, including a public workshop in 2017 and an advisory committee meeting in 2019. These discussions helped FDA formulate the considerations for rabies mAb cocktail development that are described in this draft guidance.
The draft guidance addresses the following topics:
• Considerations when selecting the mAbs included in the cocktail
• The nonclinical and clinical data needed to support clinical trials of the mAb cocktail in potentially rabies virus-exposed subjects
• The clinical data recommended to support an initial biologics license application submission of the mAb cocktail for a second-line indication in situations where human-derived RIG is not available
• The clinical data recommended to support a first-line indication for the mAb cocktail
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Rabies: Developing Monoclonal
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information associated with submissions of content and format of labeling for drugs and biologics in 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572; the collections of information associated with submissions of investigational new drug applications in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014; the collections of information associated with submissions of applications for approval to market a new drug in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under 0910-0001; the collections of information associated with the reporting and recordkeeping of postmarketing adverse drug experiences have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0001, 0910-0230, 0910-0291, and 0910-0645; and the collections of information associated with general licensing provisions for biologics in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by September 27, 2021.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 27, 2021. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (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 requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection supports federally funded public health projects administered by the Agency's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). As part of FDA's efforts to protect the public health, we work collaboratively with State partners to enhance oversight of FDA-regulated products. Consistent with applicable regulations pertaining to federally funded programs, we currently collect information related to an awardee's progress in completing agreed-upon performance metrics 3 to 4 times a year during the performance period. Respondents to the information collection are recipients of FDA-funded projects who submit required information to FDA in free text and narrative form via portable document format (pdf). To increase our efficiency in evaluating program effectiveness and return-on-investment (ROI)/return-on-value (ROV) for the federally funded projects that we administer, we intend to develop and establish the use of digital forms that contain standardized questions to capture data elements necessary to measure/track ROI/ROV. We believe the use of standardized forms will reduce the time required by awardees in completing and submitting progress reports.
As part of the pilot, respondents will complete an initial report and progress/performance reports, which include data fields to identify the award project and contact person and directs specific questions to respondents regarding project and progress updates. Based on public feedback, we hope to revise the reports, tailoring for project specificity and purpose, to include, but not limited to, improvements, such as drop-down menu selections and potential common response indicators that will reduce time for respondents and allow us to more quickly process information and determine impacts at the Agency level. As information will be requested of actively funded projects, it may become necessary to request additional information for a particular project to complete the performance evaluation(s) in a timely manner. To ensure data is sufficient, on a case-by-case basis, FDA anticipates a need for followup questionnaire(s) to supplement the progress reports as instruments of collection are developed and fine-tuned through this effort.
We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:
We estimate that 400 respondents will participate under this pilot project and will submit an average of 3 to 4 reports within a single budget year (table 1). To ensure adequate reporting will be achieved over the course of this pilot, the option for a supplement or followup report is included in the estimated reporting burden; however, the need for these reports will be determined on a case-by-case basis with the FDA project manager.
Recordkeeping activities include storing and maintaining records related to submitting a request to participate in the project and compiling reports. Respondents should use current record retention capabilities for electronic or paper storage to achieve these activities. We assume it will take 0.5 hour/year to ensure the documents related to submitting a request to participate in the program are retained properly according to their existing recordkeeping policies, but no less than 3 years, as recommended by FDA (table 2).
For those pilot projects that involve a participant composed of partnering entities in the program, FDA is taking into consideration the time that partnering entities will spend coordinating with each other in a pilot project. We estimate that 300 respondents will work with their respective partnering entities and the average number of partnering entities will be 2. We assume each respondent will spend 8 hours coordinating with each partnering entity on each response for this pilot. We estimate that seven respondents will need to coordinate with an average of two partnering entities to create progress reports and the final report to submit to FDA (table 3).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) are announcing the effective date for Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) validations referenced in FDA's “Technical Rejection Criteria for Study Data” (TRC).
The eCTD validations will become applicable on September 15, 2021.
You may submit either electronic or written comments at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Jonathan Resnick, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3160, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7997,
In accordance with the guidance
The technical rejection criteria are automated validations by the CDER or CBER inbound processing system using the specifications set forth in FDA's “Specifications for eCTD Validation Criteria” to determine compliance with the requirement to submit electronic standardized study data. The eCTD validations referenced in FDA's TRC will become effective on September 15, 2021. Starting September 15, 2021, FDA will reject submissions that contain any high validation errors included in the TRC. The latest version of the TRC is available on FDA's web page on Study Data for Submission to CDER and CBER (
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by August 30, 2021.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
From 1998 to 2008, FDA's National Retail Food Team conducted a study to measure trends in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors, preparation practices, and employee behaviors most commonly reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as contributing factors to foodborne illness outbreaks at the retail level. Specifically, data was collected by FDA Specialists in retail and foodservice establishments at 5-year intervals (1998, 2003, and 2008) in order to observe and document trends in the occurrence of the following foodborne illness risk factors:
• Food from Unsafe Sources,
• Poor Personal Hygiene,
• Inadequate Cooking,
• Improper Holding/Time and Temperature, and
• Contaminated Equipment/Cross-Contamination.
FDA developed reports summarizing the findings for each of the three data collection periods, released in 2000, 2004, and 2009 (Refs. 1 to 3). Data from all three data collection periods were analyzed to detect trends in improvement or regression over time and to determine whether progress had been made toward the goal of reducing the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors in selected retail and foodservice facility types (Ref. 4).
Using this 10-year survey as a foundation, in 2013-2014, FDA initiated a new study in full-service and fast-food restaurants. This study will span 10 years with data collections completed in 2013-2014 and 2017-2018, and an additional collection planned for 2021-2022. Three data collections are necessary to trend the data. Data collected in 2013-2014 is published, and data from 2017-2018 is currently being evaluated for trends and significance.
The results of this 10-year study period will be used to:
• Develop retail food safety initiatives, policies, and targeted intervention strategies focused on controlling foodborne illness risk factors;
• Provide technical assistance to State, local, tribal, and territorial regulatory professionals;
• Identify FDA retail work plan priorities; and
• Inform FDA resource allocation to enhance retail food safety nationwide.
The statutory basis for FDA conducting this study is derived from the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 243, section 311(a)). Responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the PHS Act relative to food protection was transferred to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs in 1968 (21 CFR 5.10(a)(2) and (4)). Additionally, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301
The objectives of this study are to:
• Identify the least and most often occurring foodborne illness risk factors and food safety behaviors/practices in restaurants within the United States;
• Determine the extent to which Food Safety Management Systems and the presence of a Certified Food Protection Manager impact the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors and food safety behaviors/practices; and
• Determine whether the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors and food safety behaviors/practices in delis differs based on an establishment's risk categorization and status as a single-unit or multiple-unit operation (
The methodology to be used for this information collection is described as follows. To obtain a sufficient number of observations to conduct statistically significant analysis, FDA will conduct approximately 400 data collections in each facility type. This sample size has been calculated to provide for sufficient observations to be 95 percent confident that the compliance percentage is within 5 percent of the true compliance percentage.
A geographical information system database containing a listing of businesses throughout the United States provides the establishment inventory for the data collections. FDA samples establishments from the inventory based on the descriptions in table 1. FDA does not intend to sample operations that handle only prepackaged food items or conduct low-risk food preparation activities. The “FDA Food Code” contains a grouping of establishments by risk, based on the type of food preparation that is normally conducted within the operation (Ref. 5). The intent is to sample establishments that fall under risk categories 2 through 4.
FDA has approximately 23 Retail Food Specialists (Specialists) who serve as the data collectors for the 10-year study. The Specialists are geographically dispersed throughout the United States and possess technical expertise in retail food safety and a solid understanding of the operations within each of the facility types to be surveyed. The Specialists are also standardized by FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition personnel in the application and interpretation of the FDA Food Code (Ref. 5).
Sampling zones have been established that are equal to the 175-mile radius around a Specialist's home location. The sample is selected randomly from among all eligible establishments located within these sampling zones. The Specialists are generally located in major metropolitan areas (
1. It provides a cross-section of urban and rural areas from which to sample the eligible establishments.
2. It represents a mix of small, medium, and large regulatory entities having jurisdiction over the eligible establishments.
3. It reduces overnight travel and, therefore, reduces travel costs incurred by the Agency to collect data.
The sample for each data collection period is evenly distributed among
Prior to conducting the data collection, Specialists contact the State or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for conducting retail food inspections for the selected establishment. The Specialist verifies with the jurisdiction that the facility has been properly classified for the purposes of the study and is still in operation. The Specialist ascertains whether the selected facility is under legal notice from the State or local regulatory authority. If the selected facility is under legal notice, the Specialist will not conduct a data collection, and a substitute establishment will be used. An invitation is extended to the State or local regulatory authority to accompany the Specialist on the data collection visit.
A standard form is used by the Specialists during each data collection. The form is divided into three sections: Section 1—“Establishment Information”; Section 2—“Regulatory Authority Information”; and Section 3—“Foodborne Illness Risk Factor and Food Safety Management System Assessment.” The information in Section 1 “Establishment Information” of the form is obtained during an interview with the establishment owner or person in charge by the Specialist and includes a standard set of questions.
The information in Section 2—“Regulatory Authority Information” is obtained during an interview with the program director of the State or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for conducting inspections for the selected establishment.
Section 3—“Foodborne Illness Risk Factor and Food Safety Management System Assessment” includes three parts: Part A for tabulating the Specialists' observations of the food employees' behaviors and practices in limiting contamination, proliferation, and survival of food safety hazards; Part B for assessing the food safety management system being implemented by the facility; and Part C for assessing the frequency and extent of food employee handwashing. The information in Part A is collected from the Specialists' direct observations of food employee behaviors and practices. Infrequent, nonstandard questions may be asked by the Specialists if clarification is needed on the food safety procedure or practice being observed. The information in Part B is collected by making direct observations and asking followup questions of facility management to obtain information on the extent to which the food establishment has developed and implemented food safety management systems. The information in Part C is collected by making direct observations of food employee handwashing. No questions are asked in the completion of Section 3, Part C of the form.
FDA collects the following information associated with the establishment's identity: Establishment name, street address, city, State, ZIP Code, county, industry segment, and facility type. The establishment-identifying information is collected to ensure the data collections are not duplicative. Other information related to the nature of the operation, such as seating capacity and number of employees per shift, is also collected. Data will be consolidated and reported in a manner that does not reveal the identity of any establishment included in the study.
FDA has collaborated with the Food Protection and Defense Institute to develop a web-based platform in FoodSHIELD to collect, store, and analyze data for the Retail Risk Factor Study. This platform is accessible to State, local, territorial, and tribal regulatory jurisdictions to collect data relevant to their own risk factor studies. For the 2015-2016 data collection, FDA piloted the use of hand-held technology for capturing the data onsite during the data collection visits. The tablets that were made available for the data collections were part of a broader Agency initiative focused on internal uses of hand-held technology. The tablets provided for the data collection presented several technical and logistical challenges and increased the time burden associated with the data collection as compared to the manual entry of data collections. For these reasons, FDA will not be further evaluating hand-held technology in subsequent data collections during the 10-year study period.
When a data collector is assigned a specific establishment, he or she conducts the data collection and enters the information into the web-based data platform. The interface will support the manual entering of data, as well as the ability to directly enter information in the database via a web browser.
The burden for the 2021-2022 data collection is as follows. For each data collection, the respondents will include: (1) The person in charge of the selected facility (whether it be a fast- food or full-service restaurant); and (2) the program director (or designated individual) of the respective regulatory authority. In order to provide the sufficient number of observations needed to conduct a statistically significant analysis of the data, FDA has determined that 400 data collections will be required in each of the two restaurant facility types. Therefore, the total number of responses will be 1,600 (400 data collections × 2 facility types × 2 respondents per data collection).
The burden associated with the completion of Sections 1 and 3 of the form is specific to the persons in charge of the selected facilities. The burden includes the time it will take the person in charge to accompany the data collector during the site visit and answer the data collector's questions. The burden related to the completion of Section 2 of the form is specific to the program directors (or designated individuals) of the respective regulatory authorities. The burden includes the time it will take to answer the data collectors' questions and is the same regardless of the facility type.
In the
(Comment) The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the Academy) commented that they support the proposed information collection for the survey on the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors in various settings. The Academy provided comments pertaining to the following general areas of the study:
a. Question whether 90 minutes is adequate for surveying larger facilities.
b. Request FDA evaluate the impact of conducting surveys during peak hours of operation.
c. Suggest that the use of gloves is not adequately addressed in the survey.
d. Encourage continued efforts to simplify and standardize expiration dates.
Related to foodservice operations at the retail level, the Academy provided the following comments:
e. FDA consider modifying the survey to account for new foods and new means of conveying food.
The Academy provided the following comment specific to pandemic-related considerations:
f. FDA consider modifying the survey to include trends for hot-holding and online delivery due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Academy also provided comments related to statistical analysis and data sharing:
g. FDA make the dataset public for further analysis.
h. FDA consider peer review of the report.
(Response) FDA thanks the submitter for their comments and appreciates their support. Regarding general areas of the study, FDA provides the following responses:
a. The current 10-year study estimates 90 minutes as the average time needed to adequately collect necessary information, taking into account both small and large facilities. This average time is consistent with the amount of time burden estimated for the previous data collection periods and provides a sufficient timeframe to observe food safety practices and procedures that are the focus of the study.
b. Based on the methodology of the study, the information collection is performed during hours of operation of the randomly selected facility. Data collections are scheduled at times that provide the best opportunity to observe food preparation activities, which often include peak operations.
c. Information collection related to handwashing and no bare hand contact with ready-to-eat foods, which may include use of gloves, is based on assessment of observations against the most current addition of the FDA Model Food Code. Provisions of the FDA Food Code identify when handwashing and no bare hand contact with ready-to-eat food are required during food preparation and service. The current FDA Food Code does not recognize the use of hand antiseptics in lieu of handwashing during food preparation and service.
d. The scope of this data collection focuses on foodborne illness risk factors and does not include assessment of expiration dates of manufactured foods as part of this research assessment.
Related to foodservice operations at the retail level, FDA provides the following responses:
e. The study design accounts for a variety of food conveyances in the retail food setting. The study includes four major segments of the retail and foodservice industries that account for over a million varied and diverse types of operations in the United States:
• Restaurants
• Healthcare Facilities
• Schools (K-12)
• Retail Food Stores
Related to the Academy's comments on pandemic-related considerations, FDA provides the following response:
f. The study design is based on operations regardless of extenuating circumstances. While there is utility in investigating the trends in food service, this study must focus its efforts throughout the 10-year period to ensure data can be adequately trended. Two of the three data collections for this trending were already complete before the pandemic and a singular data point with these new metrics would not be of much utility. FDA fully supports the New Era of Smarter Food Safety blueprint and endeavors to collect data to support that effort.
Regarding statistical analysis and data sharing, FDA provides the following responses:
g. FDA strives to ensure the data is available to parties upon request. Additionally, a new Topline Summary is published to
h. FDA acknowledges the benefit of peer review. For any manuscripts published resulting from the dataset, peer review is sought. For the technical report of the data, FDA will continue to utilize the format which is familiar to and accepted by our stakeholders.
To calculate the estimate of the hours per response, FDA will use the average data collection duration for the same facility types during the 2015-2016 data collection. FDA estimates that it will take the persons in charge of full-service restaurants and fast-food restaurants 104 minutes (1.73 hours) and 82 minutes (1.36 hours), respectively, to accompany the data collectors while they complete Sections 1 and 3 of the form. In comparison, for the 2017-2018 data collection, the burden estimate was 106 minutes (1.76 hours) in full-service restaurants and 73 minutes (1.21 hours) in fast-food restaurants. FDA estimates that it will take the program director (or designated individual) of the respective regulatory authority 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to answer the questions related to Section 2 of the form. This burden estimate is unchanged from the last data collection. Hence, the total burden estimate for a data collection in a full-service restaurant, including both the program director's and the person in charge's responses, is 134 minutes (104 + 30) (2.23 hours). The total burden estimate for a data collection in a fast-food restaurant, including both the program director's and the person in charge's responses, is 112 minutes (82 + 30) (1.86 hours).
Based on the number of entry refusals from the 2017-2018 data collection, we estimate a refusal rate of 2 percent for the data collections within restaurant facility types. The estimate of the time per non-respondent is 5 minutes (0.08 hours) for the person in charge to listen to the purpose of the visit and provide a verbal refusal of entry.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500 and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before September 27, 2021.
Submit your comments to
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-New-60D and project title for reference, to Sherrette A. Funn, email:
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (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.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that the Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability (ACBTSA) will hold a virtual meeting. The meeting will be open to the public. The committee will discuss recommendations to improve the supply chain and data infrastructure that supports the blood industry, especially during public health emergencies. To facilitate this discussion, key stakeholders from across the nation and around the world will present on hemovigilance, preparedness, inventory management systems and other relevant issues.
The meeting will take place virtually on Tuesday, August 17, 2021 from approximately 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Wednesday, August 18, 2021 from approximately 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). Meeting times are tentative and subject to change. The confirmed times and agenda items for the meeting will be posted on the ACBTSA web page at
James Berger, Designated Federal Officer for the ACBTSA; 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:
ACBTSA is a discretionary Federal advisory committee. ACBTSA The Committee is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. On the day of the meeting, please go to
ACBTSA functions to provide advice to the Secretary through the Assistant Secretary for Health on a range of policy issues to include: (1) Identification of public health issues through surveillance of blood and tissue safety issues with national survey and data tools; (2) identification of public health issues that affect availability of blood, blood products, and tissues; (3) broad public health, ethical, and legal issues related to the safety of blood, blood products, and tissues; (4) the impact of various economic factors (
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.
National Institutes of Health, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This 2-day, virtual workshop—Exploring the Science Surrounding the Safe Use of Bioactive Ingredients in Infant Formula: Considerations for an Assessment Framework—focuses on the functional state-of-the-science of biologically active human milk components and analogs and the implications for safety assessments when used in infant formula.
The Meeting will be held on September 23-24, 2021, from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (ET).
This workshop will be videocast at
For information concerning this meeting, contract Dr. Ashley Vargas, Pediatric Growth and Nutrition Branch, Division of Extramural Research,
This
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will hold the Phase IV open session for the NIH Scientific Workshop on Violence and Related Health Outcomes in Sexual and Gender Minority (SGM) Communities to enhance our understanding of violence against SGM individuals and identify opportunities in violence-related research. The primary objectives of NIH's Phase IV meeting are: (1) To allow the public to participate, and (2) to further refine research opportunities.
The NIH Scientific Workshop on Violence and Related Health Outcomes in Sexual and Gender Minority Communities Phase IV virtual meeting will be held on Thursday, August 26, 2021, from 12:00-4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT).
The meeting will be held virtually via WebEx.
The preliminary agenda and registration are available at
Irene Avila, Ph.D., Assistant Director, Sexual & Gender Minority Research Office (SGMRO),
In accordance with Section 404N of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255), the Director of NIH shall encourage research on SGM populations. The Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office (SGMRO) coordinates SGM-related research and activities by working directly with NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices. The Office was officially established in September 2015 within the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI) in the NIH Office of the Director and has the following operational goals: (1) Advance rigorous research on the health of SGM populations in both the extramural and intramural research communities; (2) expand SGM health research by fostering partnerships and collaborations with a strategic array of internal and external stakeholders; (3) foster a highly skilled and diverse workforce in SGM health research; and (4) encourage data collection related to SGM populations in research and the biomedical research workforce. The Scientific Workshop on Violence and Related Health Outcomes in Sexual and Gender Minority Communities represents an important step in pursuing these goals specifically in the field of violence research.
The NIH Scientific Workshop on Violence and Related Health Outcomes in Sexual and Gender Minority Communities invites stakeholders throughout the scientific research community, clinical practice communities, patient and family advocates, scientific or professional organizations, federal partners, internal NIH stakeholders, and other interested members of the public to participate and provide comments, questions, or feedback at the workshop. The goal of the meeting is to identify opportunities in violence-related research. Public input will serve as a valuable element in the development of the final proposed research opportunities.
This notice serves as the announcement for the fourth and final phase of the Scientific Workshop on Violence and Related Health Outcomes in Sexual and Gender Minority Communities. Phase I was the Request for Information (RFI)
Phase IV will involve moderated discussions with the presenters from the Phase III working groups to refine research opportunities needed to further our understanding of violence in SGM communities. Audience feedback, comments, and questions during this session will help further refine the proposed research opportunities.
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.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This document announces that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is adjusting certain customs user fees and corresponding limitations established by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) for Fiscal Year 2022 in accordance with the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) as implemented by the CBP regulations.
The adjusted amounts of customs COBRA user fees and their corresponding limitations set forth in this notice for Fiscal Year 2022 are required as of October 1, 2021.
Tina Ghiladi, Senior Advisor, International Travel & Trade, Office of Finance, 202-344-3722,
On December 4, 2015, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act, Pub. L. 114-94) was signed into law. Section 32201 of the FAST Act amended section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c) by requiring the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) to adjust certain customs COBRA user fees and corresponding limitations to reflect certain increases in inflation.
Sections 24.22 and 24.23 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 24.22 and 24.23) describe the procedures that implement the requirements of the FAST Act. Specifically, paragraph (k) in § 24.22 (19 CFR 24.22(k)) sets forth the methodology to determine the change in inflation as well as the factor by which the fees and limitations will be adjusted, if necessary. The fees and limitations subject to adjustment, which are set forth in appendix A and appendix B of part 24, include the commercial vessel arrival fees, commercial truck arrival fees, railroad car arrival fees, private vessel arrival fees, private aircraft arrival fees, commercial aircraft and vessel passenger arrival fees, dutiable mail fees, customs broker permit user fees, barges and other bulk carriers arrival fees, and merchandise processing fees, as well as the corresponding limitations.
In accordance with 19 CFR 24.22, CBP must determine annually whether the fees and limitations must be adjusted to reflect inflation. For Fiscal Year 2022, CBP is making this determination by comparing the average of the Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers, U.S. All items, 1982-1984 (CPI-U) for the current year (June 2020-May 2021) with the average of the CPI-U for the comparison year (June 2019-May 2020) to determine the change in inflation, if any. If there is an increase in the CPI-U of greater than one (1) percent, CBP must adjust the customs COBRA user fees and corresponding limitations using the methodology set forth in 19 CFR 24.22(k). Following the steps provided in paragraph (k)(2) of § 24.22, CBP has determined that the increase in the CPI-U between the most recent June to May twelve-month period (June 2020-May 2021) and the comparison year (June 2019-May 2020) is 1.94
Using the methodology set forth in § 24.22(k)(2) of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 24.22(k)), CBP has determined that the factor by which the base fees and limitations will be adjusted is 11.009 percent (base fees and limitations can be found in appendices A and B to part 24 of title 19). In reaching this determination, CBP calculated the values for each variable found in paragraph (k) of 19 CFR 24.22 as follows:
• The arithmetic average of the CPI-U for June 2020-May 2021, referred to as (A) in the CBP regulations, is 261.992;
• The arithmetic average of the CPI-U for Fiscal Year 2014, referred to as (B), is 236.009;
• The arithmetic average of the CPI-U for the comparison year (June 2019-May 2020), referred to as (C), is 257.092;
• The difference between the arithmetic averages of the CPI-U of the comparison year (June 2019-May 2020) and the current year (June 2020-May 2021), referred to as (D), is 4.900;
• This difference rounded to the nearest whole number, referred to as (E), is 5;
• The percentage change in the arithmetic averages of the CPI-U of the comparison year (June 2019-May 2020) and the current year (June 2020-May 2021), referred to as (F), is 1.94 percent;
• The difference in the arithmetic average of the CPI-U between the current year (June 2020-May 2021) and the base year (Fiscal Year 2014), referred to as (G), is 25.984; and
• Lastly, the percentage change in the CPI-U from the base year (Fiscal Year 2014) to the current year (June 2020-May 2021), referred to as (H), is 11.009 percent.
The adjusted amounts of customs COBRA user fees and their corresponding limitations for Fiscal Year 2022 as adjusted by 11.009 percent set forth below are required as of October 1, 2021. Table 1 provides the fees and limitations found in 19 CFR 24.22 as adjusted for Fiscal Year 2022, and Table 2 provides the fees and limitations found in 19 CFR 24.23 as adjusted for Fiscal Year 2022.
Tables 1 and 2, setting
Troy A. Miller, the Acting Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this notice document to Robert F. Altneu, who is the Director of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division for CBP, for purposes of publication in the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, DHS.
Correction; extension of comment period.
On June 23, 2021, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) published a 30-day notice and requested comments to revise Information Collection Request (ICR) 1670-0014 in the
Comments are due by August 30, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Lona Saccomando, 202-579-0590,
CISA published the required 30-day notice for ICR 1670-0014 in the
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant public websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice. Comments that include protected information such as trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI),
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS” or “the Department”), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), is issuing this document to inform the public of the approval of a new credentialing organization for certain health care workers for certain immigration purposes.
USCIS approved the application from Josef Silny Associates, Inc. on July 22, 2021.
Charles L. Nimick, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; or by phone at 240-721-3000 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD).
Sections 212(a)(5)(C) and 212(r) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(C) and (r), as well as the DHS regulations at 8 CFR 214.1(i) and (j) and 212.15(a) and (n)(3) require that an individual who seeks admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant or immigrant, or who is the beneficiary of a change of status petition, or who is applying for adjustment of status, in the United States for the purpose of performing labor in certain health care occupations is inadmissible unless he or she presents a certificate from an authorized credentialing organization. DHS regulations at 8 CFR 212.15(e)(1) through (3) expressly authorize the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (CGFNS), the National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy (NBCOT), and the Foreign Credentialing Commission on Physical Therapy (FCCPT) to issue such certificates. DHS regulations also establish detailed standards for the approval of additional credentialing organizations after consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and USCIS has created an adjudicatory framework for the filing and adjudication of those applications, using Form I-905,
On July 22, 2021, USCIS, following consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, approved the application from Josef Silny Associates, Inc., as an organization authorized to issue certificates and certified statements under sections 212(a)(5)(C) and 212(r) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(C) and (r), for individuals seeking to enter the United States for the primary purpose of working as a nurse. This notice is being provided in accordance with 8 CFR 212.15(e) and (h). Further guidance on certificates for health care workers is available at
Office of Community Planning and Development, Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5535 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Robert Peterson, Director of State and Small Cities Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, email Robert Peterson at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
We request the paperwork approval because the funding approval form is a vehicle for standardizing the agreements between HUD and each of its grantees.
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,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, James Arthur Jemison II, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to submitter, Aaron Santa Anna, who is the Federal Register Liaison for HUD, for purposes of publication in the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Call for information and nominations; request for comments.
This Call is published to solicit public input and industry interest on potential offshore wind energy development on areas adjacent to the Morro Bay Call Area previously identified in 2018. These new areas are within a 399-square-mile area located off central California, identified as the Morro Bay 399 Area.
BOEM must receive nominations and public comments by September 13, 2021.
Submit nominations for a lease area following the instructions in section 7, “Required Nomination Information,” under
Comments and other information may be submitted by either of the following two methods:
1.
2. U.S. Postal Service or other delivery service. Send your comments and information to the following address: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Strategic Resources, 760 Paseo Camarillo (Suite 102), Camarillo, California 93010.
All submissions, including any personally identifiable information included in your comment, will be reported on
Jean Thurston-Keller, BOEM California Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force Coordinator, BOEM, Office of Strategic Resources, 760 Paseo Camarillo (Suite 102), Camarillo, California 93010, (805) 384-6303, or
This Call is published pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3) and the implementing regulations at 30 CFR part 585.
The call areas described in this notice are located on the OCS offshore central California and are delineated as the Morro Bay Call Area East Extension and the Morro Bay Call Area West Extension (together, the Call Area Extensions). These areas include 2 whole OCS blocks and 221 partial blocks and comprise approximately 141 square statute miles (mi) (90,025 acres). BOEM will identify which, if any, portions of the Call Area Extensions and the Morro Bay Call Area will undergo environmental analysis and consideration for leasing as part of area identification (Area ID) during the competitive leasing process. Section 5, “Description of the Area,” provides a detailed description and developmental history of the Call Area Extensions.
The OCS Lands Act requires BOEM to award leases competitively unless BOEM determines that there is no competitive interest (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3)). On October 19, 2018, BOEM published a call for information and nominations to solicit commercial interest in wind energy leases within three areas identified offshore California (83 FR 53096).
In this current notice, BOEM solicits information on the Call Area Extensions, as well as new nominations of commercial interest from entities that were not previously qualified by BOEM and did not submit a nomination for the Morro Bay Call Area in 2018. Entities who submitted nominations of commercial interest for the Morro Bay Call Area in 2018 do not need to respond to this Call unless they want to nominate portions of the Call Area Extensions.
BOEM determined that competitive interest existed in the Morro Bay Call Area after reviewing the nominations submitted in 2018. BOEM assumes that competitive interest will be expressed in the Call Area Extensions described in this notice given their geographical proximity to the Morro Bay Call Area. Depending on the comments received in response to this Call, BOEM may or may not proceed with the competitive leasing process set forth in 30 CFR 585.211 through 585.225. This process is explained in detail in section 3, “BOEM's Planning and Leasing Process.”
A lease does not grant the lessee the right to construct any facilities on the leasehold. Rather, the lease grants the lessee the exclusive right to submit site assessment and construction and operations plans to BOEM, which BOEM may approve, modify, or disapprove. The lessee must obtain BOEM's approval of its plans before it may proceed to the next stage of the process (30 CFR 585.600 and 585.601).
BOEM's leasing process includes opportunities for the public to provide input, and any proposed leasing actions will be reviewed thoroughly for potential environmental impacts and multiple use conflicts. The areas that may be offered for lease, if any, have not yet been determined and may include less than the total footprint of the Call Area Extensions.
Although this notice is not itself a leasing announcement, the area described herein, or portions thereof, may be available for future leasing. Parties wishing to submit a nomination of commercial interest in response to this Call should submit detailed and specific information in response to the requirements described in section 7, “Required Nomination Information.” This notice also requests comments and information regarding site conditions, resources, and multiple uses in close proximity to, or within, the Call Area Extensions that would be relevant to BOEM's review of the nominations and to any subsequent decision whether to offer all or part of the Call Area Extensions for commercial wind energy leasing. Information that BOEM is requesting is described in section 6, “Requested Information from Interested or Affected Parties.”
On October 19, 2018, BOEM published a call for information and nominations in the
Based on the 2018 Call, BOEM previously decided to move forward with the leasing process for the Humboldt Call Area. That area is not addressed in this notice.
Following the 2018 Call, the Morro Bay and Diablo Canyon Call Areas were initially assessed as incompatible for wind energy development by the U.S.
In May 2021, the Department of the Interior, DoD, and the State of California agreed to advance areas for possible wind energy development offshore the northern and central coasts of California, enabling a path forward for the Humboldt Call Area and areas within and adjacent to the Morro Bay Call Area (
After reviewing the information received in response to this Call, BOEM may combine all or portions of the Call Area Extensions with all or portions of the Morro Bay Call Area into one or more Wind Energy Areas (WEA) that would be subject to environmental analysis and consideration for leasing. It is unnecessary for those who previously nominated areas within the 2018 Morro Bay Call Area to do so again.
The EPAct amended the OCS Lands Act by adding subsection 8(p),
BOEM appreciates the importance of coordinating its planning with relevant Federal agencies, Tribes, State agencies, and other OCS users. BOEM and the State of California, through the leadership of the California Energy Commission, have engaged in a collaborative, data-based offshore wind energy planning process in order to foster coordinated and informed decisions about California's shared ocean resources and the many users who depend on them. This outreach has consisted of numerous public meetings, webinars, and briefings with coastal communities, fishing communities, federally and non-federally recognized Tribes, State and Federal agencies, academia, scientists, environmental non-governmental organizations, and the offshore renewable energy industry. The summary report on this outreach can be viewed at:
At the request of Governor Brown, BOEM established an intergovernmental renewable energy task force with California in 2016 (Task Force) to facilitate coordination among relevant Federal agencies and affected Tribal, State, and local governments throughout the leasing process. The Task Force met three times: October 13, 2016; September 17, 2018; and March 9, 2020. Meeting materials are available on the BOEM website at:
In 2002, the State of California established a renewables portfolio standard (RPS), which establishes how much of California's electricity should be powered by renewable energy resources. California expanded the RPS in 2015 through passage of the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act, and through passage of Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018. SB 100 increased the State's RPS to 50 percent by 2025 and 60 percent by 2030, and provides that renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve state agencies by December 31, 2045. California's RPS is one of the most ambitious renewable energy standards in the country. Additional information about California's RPS is available at:
Prior to deciding whether and where leases may be issued, BOEM will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) and conduct appropriate consultations to consider the environmental consequences associated with issuing commercial wind energy leases. As any lease that BOEM intends to issue would not grant the right to construct any facilities within the leasehold, the EA will consider the environmental consequences associated with leasing, site assessment, and site characterization activities (including geophysical, geotechnical, archaeological, and biological surveys). If BOEM issues a lease and the lessee proposes the construction and operation of offshore wind energy facilities, BOEM will identify, analyze, and consider the environmental effects of such construction and operation through a separate, project-specific process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which will include additional opportunities for public involvement. At that time, BOEM also will conduct further coordination and consultation, including, but not limited to, those which may be required under the Coastal Zone Management Act, Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination With Tribal Governments”).
As stated in 43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3), “the Secretary shall issue a lease, easement, or right-of-way . . . on a competitive
BOEM will not issue any leases until it has completed the necessary consultations and environmental analysis and given the public an opportunity to comment. BOEM reserves the right to determine which, if any, of the nominated areas within the Morro Bay Call Area and Call Area Extensions will be leased and to modify such areas from their original, proposed description before offering them for lease.
If, BOEM proceeds with the competitive leasing process for certain areas after receiving nominations and responses to this Call, BOEM will follow the steps required by 30 CFR 585.211 through 585.225.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
In coordination with the State of California, BOEM held multiple stakeholder outreach meetings in central California to obtain input into the development of additional areas in and around the Morro Bay Call Area identified in 2018 and to gather data and information to use in BOEM's decision-making process. BOEM, the State of California, State elected officials, ONMS, and DoD conducted additional outreach and engagement to determine if any additional areas in and around the Morro Bay Call Area should be considered for potential leasing. More information on these meetings and outreach can be viewed at:
The DoD conducts offshore testing, training, and operations on the OCS offshore the central coast of California. Because the DoD testing, training, and operations off the coast of California are essential to national security, DoD played a critical role in identifying these new areas for offshore wind development. The Department of the Interior, in close coordination with the DoD, identified the Call Area Extensions to advance the planning for wind energy development offshore Morro Bay (
BOEM's subsequent analysis during Area ID will evaluate the Call Area Extensions and the Morro Bay Call Area for appropriateness for offshore wind energy development, balanced against potential ocean user conflicts. After conducting environmental reviews and associated consultations, analyzing public comments, and coordinating with other government agencies through the Task Force, BOEM anticipates developing and incorporating terms and conditions—including any measures necessary to mitigate impacts—at the leasing and site assessment and characterization phases. This Call allows additional stakeholders to provide input on the Call Area Extensions prior to further modification during the Area ID process.
The Call Area Extensions are described geographically in this section. A map of the Call Area Extensions, the Morro Bay Call Area, and associated GIS files, which are located in UTM Zone 10N, NAD 83 Datum, can be found at the following URL:
The boundary of Morro Bay Call Area East Extension begins 21 mi offshore Cambria, California. The area is about 7 mi in length from north to south and about 3 mi in width from east to west. The entire area is approximately 23 square mi (14,589 acres) and is described in the table below:
The boundary of Morro Bay Call Area West Extension begins 35 mi offshore Cambria, California. The area is about 23 mi in length from north to south and about 11 mi in width from east to west. The entire area is approximately 118 square mi (75,436 acres) and is described in the table below:
BOEM requests specific and detailed comments from the public and interested or affected parties regarding the following:
1. Geological, geophysical, and biological conditions (including bottom and shallow hazards and live bottoms) in the Call Area Extensions.
2. Known archaeological or cultural resource sites on the seabed in the Call Area Extensions.
3. Historic properties potentially affected by site characterization and assessment or commercial wind energy development in the Call Area Extensions. This information will inform BOEM's review of future undertakings under section 106 of NHPA and under NEPA.
4. Other uses of the Call Area Extensions, including navigation (in particular, commercial and recreational vessel use), recreation, and fisheries (commercial and recreational).
5. Additional information regarding recreational and commercial fisheries that operate within the Call Area Extensions, including, but not limited to, the use of the area, the fishing gear types used, seasonal use, and suggestions for reducing use conflicts.
6. Available and pertinent data and information concerning renewable energy resources and environmental conditions in and around the Call Area Extensions. Where applicable, spatial information should be submitted in a format compatible with ArcGIS 10.5 in a geographic coordinate system (NAD 83).
7. Information relating to the visual resources and aesthetics of the Call Area Extensions, the potential impacts of wind turbines located within the Call Area Extensions to those resources, and potential strategies to help mitigate or minimize any visual effects.
8. Relevant socioeconomic, biological, and environmental information.
9. Any other relevant information BOEM should consider during its planning and decision-making process for the purpose of issuing leases in the Call Area Extensions.
All interested entities should submit their nomination for any possible commercial wind energy lease area
1. The BOEM Protraction Diagram name and number, and the specific whole or partial OCS blocks within the Call Area Extensions that you are interested in leasing, inclusive of any potential buffers with adjacent leases. This information should be submitted as a spatial file compatible with ArcGIS 10.5 in a geographic coordinate system (NAD 83) in addition to your hard copy submittal. If a proposed lease area includes one or more partial blocks, please describe those partial blocks in terms of a sixteenth (
2. A description of your objectives and the facilities that you would use to achieve those objectives.
3. A preliminary schedule of proposed activities, including those leading to commercial operations.
4. Available and pertinent data and information concerning renewable energy resources and environmental conditions in any area that you nominate, including energy and resource data and information used to evaluate the area. Where applicable, spatial information should be submitted in a format compatible with ArcGIS 10.5 in a geographic coordinate system (NAD 83).
5. Documentation demonstrating that you are legally qualified to hold a lease, as set forth in 30 CFR 585.106 and 585.107(c). Examples of the documentation appropriate for demonstrating your legal qualifications and related guidance can be found in Chapter 2 and Appendix B of the
6. Documentation demonstrating that you are technically and financially capable of constructing, operating, maintaining, and decommissioning the facilities described in 7(2) above, as set forth in 30 CFR 585.107(a). Guidance regarding the required documentation to demonstrate your technical and financial qualifications can be found at:
7. Any documentation you submit to demonstrate your legal, technical, and financial qualifications must be provided to BOEM in both paper and electronic formats. BOEM considers an Adobe PDF file on a storage media device to be an acceptable format for an electronic copy.
You are not required to submit a nomination in response to this Call to participate in a potential future competitive lease sale offshore California. However, you will be required to demonstrate to BOEM that you are legally, technically, and financially qualified to hold a BOEM-issued renewable energy lease before you will be allowed to participate in a competitive lease sale. To ensure that BOEM has sufficient time to process your qualifications package, you should submit this package before or during the PSN 60-day public comment period. More information can be found at:
BOEM will list the parties that submitted nominations and the locations of the proposed lease areas (
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), BOEM will protect the privileged or confidential information that you submit. Exemption 4 of FOIA applies to trade secrets and commercial or financial information that you submit that is privileged or confidential. If you wish to protect the confidentiality of such information, clearly mark it and request that BOEM treat it as confidential. BOEM will not disclose such information if it qualifies for exemption from disclosure under FOIA. Please label privileged or confidential information “Contains Confidential Information” and consider submitting such information as a separate attachment.
BOEM will not treat as confidential any aggregate summaries of such information or comments not containing such information. Additionally, BOEM will not treat as confidential (1) the legal title of the nominating entity (for example, the name of your company), or (2) the list of whole or partial blocks that you are nominating. Information that is not labeled as privileged or confidential will be regarded by BOEM as suitable for public release.
BOEM does not consider anonymous comments; please include your name and address as part of your comment. You should be aware that your entire comment, including your name, address, and any other personally identifiable information that you submit, may be made publicly available at any time. All submissions from identified individuals, businesses, and organizations will be available for public viewing on
In order for BOEM to withhold from disclosure your personally identifiable information, you must identify any information contained in your comments that, if released, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of your personal privacy. You must also briefly describe any possible harmful consequences of the disclosure of information, such as embarrassment, injury, or other harm.
BOEM is required, after consultation with the Secretary, to withhold the location, character, or ownership of historic resources if it determines that disclosure may, among other things, risk harm to the historic resources or impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. Tribal entities should designate information that falls under section 304 of NHPA as confidential.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
AMPAC Fine Chemicals, LLC. has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before September 27, 2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before September 27, 2021.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on June 14, 2021, AMPAC Fine Chemicals, LLC., Highway 50 and Hazel Avenue, Rancho Cordova, California 95670, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for distribution to its customers.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is providing notice of an application it has received from an entity applying to be registered to manufacture in bulk basic class(es) of controlled substances listed in schedule I. DEA intends to evaluate this and other pending applications according to its regulations governing the program of growing marihuana for scientific and medical research under DEA registration.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefor, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before September 27, 2021.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference Docket No—DEA-870 in all correspondence, including attachments.
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits the cultivation and distribution of marihuana except by persons who are registered under the CSA to do so for lawful purposes. In accordance with the purposes specified in 21 CFR 1301.33(a), DEA is providing notice that the entity identified below has applied for registration as a bulk manufacturer of schedule I controlled substances. In response, registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefor, may file written comments on or objections of the requested registration, as provided in this notice. This notice does not constitute any evaluation or determination of the merits of the application submitted.
The applicant plans to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for product development and distribution to DEA-registered researchers. If the application for registration is granted, the registrant would not be authorized to conduct other activity under this registration aside from those coincident activities specifically authorized by DEA regulations. DEA will evaluate the application for registration as a bulk manufacturer for compliance with all applicable laws, treaties, and regulations and to ensure adequate safeguards against diversion are in place.
As this applicant has applied to become registered as a bulk manufacturer of marihuana, the application will be evaluated under the criteria of 21 U.S.C. 823(a). DEA will conduct this evaluation in the manner described in the rule published at 85 FR 82333 on December 18, 2020, and reflected in DEA regulations at 21 CFR part 1318.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), DEA is providing notice that on June 23, 2021, Nusachi Labs, LLC., 2909 Armory Drive, Nashville, Tennessee 37204, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substances:
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Cerilliant Corporation has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 30, 2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 30, 2021.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 23, 2021, Cerilliant Corporation, 811 Paloma Drive, Suite A, Round Rock, Texas 78665-2402, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for the manufacturing of analytical reference standards and distribution to their research and forensic customers. Approval of permit application will occur only when the registrant's activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Purisys, LLC. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 30, 2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 30, 2021.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 29, 2021, Purisys, LLC., 1550 Olympic Drive, Athens, Georgia 3601-1602, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import Opium, raw (9600), Opium, powered (9639) and Opium, granulated (9640) to manufacture Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) only for distribution to its customers. No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this registration. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of the Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Request for nominations.
The Department of Labor (DOL) invites interested parties to submit nominations for individuals to serve on the Native American Employment and Training Council (NAETC) and announces the procedures for those nominations. When submitting nomination materials, please indicate the Region or Discipline for which the nominee would like to be considered. Information regarding the NAETC can
Nominations for individuals to serve on the NAETC must be submitted electronically; by August 30, 2021.
You may submit nominations and supporting materials described in this
Athena Brown, Division of Indian and Native American Programs, (202) 693-3737 or email at
Section 166(i)(4) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), 29 U.S.C. 3221(i)(4), requires the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to establish and maintain the NAETC. The statute requires the Secretary to formally consult at least twice annually with the NAETC on the operation and administration of the WIOA Section 166 Indian and Native American employment and training programs. In addition, the NAETC advises the Secretary on matters that promote the employment and training needs of Indians and Native Americans, as well as to enhance the quality of life in accordance with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The NAETC also provides guidance to the Secretary on how to make DOL discretionary funding and other special initiatives more accessible to federally recognized tribes, Alaska Native entities, and Native Hawaiian organizations.
The Council will be composed of no less than 15 members, but no more than 20, appointed by the Secretary, who are representatives of Indian tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native entities, Indian-controlled organizations serving Indians, or Native Hawaiian organizations pursuant to WIOA Section 166(i)(4)(B). The membership of the Council will, to the extent practicable, represent all geographic areas of the United States with a substantial Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian population, and will include representatives of tribal governments and of non-reservation Native American organizations that have expertise in the areas of workforce development, secondary and post-secondary education, health care, business and economic development, and job sectors growth.
Each NAETC member will be appointed for a two-year term. A vacancy occurring in the Council membership will be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. A member appointed to a vacancy on the Council will serve for the remainder of the term for which the predecessor of that member was appointed. Members of NAETC will serve on a voluntary and generally uncompensated basis, but will be reimbursed for travel expenses to attend NAETC meetings, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by the Federal travel regulations. All NAETC members will serve at the pleasure of the Secretary. Members may be appointed, reappointed, or replaced, and their terms may be extended, changed, or terminated at the Secretary's discretion.
The Department is seeking nominations from representatives of tribal governments and American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian organizations that have expertise in the areas of workforce development, secondary and post- secondary education, health care, human services, veteran services, business and economic development, and job sectors growth to join the Council and provide expertise on the WIOA Section 166, Indian and Native American Programs. The Charter requires that the Council, to the extent practicable, shall represent all geographic areas of the United States with a substantial Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian population. Accordingly, the Department is seeking representatives from each of the six ETA regions (see ETA regions located at:
Appointments for the following 17 members will expire on October 23, 2021:
Mr. Darrell Waldron, Region I, Boston (includes CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PR, RI, and VT); and Region II (includes DE, MD, PA, WV and VA);
Ms. Anne Richardson, Region II (includes DE, MD, PA, WV and VA);
Ms. Candace Lowry, Region III, Atlanta (includes AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, and TN);
Ms. Lora Ann Chaisson, and Dr. Tina Farrenkoph, Region IV, Dallas (includes AR, CO, LA, MT, ND, NM, OK, SD, TX, UT, and WY); and Erwin Pahmahmie, Jr., Region IV, Oklahoma
Ms. Christine Campbell and Dr. Joe Hobot, Region V, Chicago (includes IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, OH, and WI);
Mr. Jacob Bernal, Ms. Patricia K. Hibbeler, Mr. Gary Rickard, and Mr. Joseph Quintana, Region VI, San Francisco (includes AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, NV, OR, and WA); and,
Mr. Michael Tucker, Region VI, Alaska Native representative;
Winona Whitman, Region VI, Hawaii representative; and
Kim Kaniatobe Carroll, Matthew Lamont, and Kay Seven, Other Disciplines.
All individuals listed above are eligible for nomination.
Grantee representatives from the six ETA regions (including those designated as Pub. L. 102-477 grantees) may submit nominations for individuals residing in their ETA region only, except that nominations for Other Disciplines may by grantees from any ETA region for individuals residing in any ETA region. In order to meet the FACA requirement of a fairly balanced membership and to ensure that the points of view of Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians are represented on the Council, nominations for individuals representing Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians will be accepted in addition to nominations for each region. In addition, a representative for the State of Oklahoma will be accepted due to the number of tribes and the concentration of American Indians in Oklahoma.
In submitting nominations, consideration should be given to the availability of the nominee to attend and actively participate in Council meetings (a minimum of two meetings annually), willingness to serve on Council workgroups, and provide feedback to the grantee community. Communication between the Council member and his or her constituency is essential to the partnership between the Department and the Indian and Native American communities.
Nominations must include:
• Nominee's Name, title, organization, address, email, and phone number;
• Nominator's name, organization, address, email, and phone number;
• Nomination category (
• A biography and current resume of the nominee; and
• A cover letter that provides the reason(s) for nominating the individual or a self-nomination, and the particular expertise of the nominee in the areas of workforce development, secondary and post-secondary education, health care, human services, veteran services business and economic development and job sectors growth. In addition, the cover letter must state that the nomination is being made in response to this
We have provided an optional form for convenience. Download at
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled,
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by September 27, 2021.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden, may be obtained free by contacting Jorge Colon by telephone at (202) 693-0173 (this is not a toll-free number), TTY 1-877-889-5627 (this is not a toll-free number), or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance by email:
Candace Edens by telephone at (202) 693-3195 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at:
DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
Title 5 U.S.C. 8506 states that “[E]ach agency of the United States and each wholly or partially owned instrumentality of the United States shall make available to State agencies which have agreements, or to the Secretary of Labor, as the case may be, such information concerning the Federal service and Federal wages of a Federal employee as the Secretary considers practicable and necessary for the determination of the entitlement of the Federal employee to compensation under this subchapter.” The information shall include the findings of the employing agency concerning:
(1) Whether or not the Federal employee has performed Federal service;
(2) the periods of Federal service;
(3) the amount of Federal wages; and
(4) the reasons for termination of Federal service.
State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) administer the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program in accordance with the same terms and provisions of the paying State's unemployment insurance law that apply to unemployed claimants who worked in the private sector. SWAs must be able to obtain certain information (wage and separation data) about each claimant filing claims for UCFE benefits to enable them to determine an individual's eligibility for benefits. DOL has prescribed forms to enable SWAs to obtain this necessary information from the individual's Federal employing agency. Each of these forms is essential to the UCFE claims process and the frequency of use varies depending upon the circumstances involved. The UCFE forms are: ETA-931, ETA-931A, ETA-933, ETA-934, and ETA-935. The law (5 U.S.C. 8501,
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, (
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces changes in benefit period eligibility under the EB program that have occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the States' EB status:
• Based on the data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on July 16, 2021, the seasonally-adjusted total unemployment rate for California, Nevada, and New York fell below the 8.0 percent threshold necessary to remain “on” a High Unemployment Period in EB. As such, beginning August 8, 2021, the maximum potential entitlement for claimants in EB in these states will decrease from 20 weeks to 13 weeks.
The trigger notice covering state eligibility for the EB program can be found at:
The duration of benefits payable in the EB program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a state beginning an EB period, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)).
Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB, or who wish to inquire about their rights under the program, should contact their State Workforce Agency.
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Room S-4524, Attn: Thomas Stengle, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-2991 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email:
Signed in Washington, DC.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
Notice of Appointments.
The following persons have been appointed to the ONDCP Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board: Ms. Martha Gagné (as Chair), Mr. Kemp Chester, Mr. Eric Talbot, and Ms. Michele Marx.
Please direct any questions to Robert Kent, General Counsel, (202) 881-8815, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC 20503.
The National Science Board (NSB) hereby gives notice of the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of NSB business as follows:
Tuesday, August 3, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:55 p.m., and Wednesday, August 4, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. to 5:55 p.m. EDT.
These meetings will be held by videoconference. There will be no in-person meetings. The public may observe the public meetings, which will be streamed to the NSF You Tube channel. For meetings on Tuesday, August 3, go to:
Parts of these meetings will be open to the public. The rest of the meetings will be closed to the public. See full description below.
• Vote: Rubin Observatory Action
The NSB Office contact is Chris Blair,
All open sessions of the meeting will be webcast live on the NSB YouTube channel. Please feel free to share these links with your colleagues:
Please refer to the NSB website for additional information. You will find any updated meeting information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter, or status of meeting) at
Members of the public are advised that the NSB provides some flexibility around its meeting times. A meeting may be allowed to run over by as much as 15 minutes if the Chair decides the extra time is warranted. The next meeting will start no later than 15 minutes after the noticed start time. If a meeting ends early, the next meeting may start up to 15 minutes earlier than the noticed start time. NSB and committee meetings will not vary from noticed times by more than 15 minutes. Open meetings can also be watched in their entirety later through the YouTube link.
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support within the National Science Foundation (NSF) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of its Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Service Contracts Inventory Analysis Report.
Raymond McCollum, Policy Branch, Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support, National Science Foundation. Phone: 703-292-4225; email:
NSF's FY 2019 Service Contract Inventory Analysis Report is included as part of a governmentwide service contract inventory. The inventory includes covered service contracts that were awarded in FY 2019. The NSF analyzes this data for the purpose of determining whether its contract labor is being used in an effective and appropriate manner and if the mix of federal employees and contractors in the agency is effectively balanced. The report does not include contractor proprietary or sensitive information.
The FY 2019 Service Contract Inventory Analysis Report is provided at the following link:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (#13883) (Zoom Videoconference).
September 28, 2021; 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
September 29, 2021, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (Zoom Videoconference).
Attendance information for the meeting will be forthcoming on the website:
Open.
Dr. Martin Still, Program Director, Division of Astronomical Sciences, Suite W 9188, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: 703-292-4290.
To provide advice and recommendations to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on issues within the field of astronomy and astrophysics that are of mutual interest and concern to the agencies.
To hear presentations of current programming by representatives from NSF, NASA, DOE and other agencies relevant to astronomy and astrophysics; to discuss current and potential areas of cooperation between the agencies; to formulate recommendations for continued and new areas of cooperation and mechanisms for achieving them.
Thursday, August 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.; and Friday, August 6, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.
Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, in the Benjamin Franklin Room.
Thursday, August 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.—Closed; Friday, August 6, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.—Open.
A public comment period will begin immediately following the adjournment of the open session on August 6, 2021. During the public comment period, which shall not exceed 30 minutes, members of the public may comment on any item or subject listed on the agenda for the open session above. Registration of speakers at the public comment period is required. Speakers may register online at
Michael J. Elston, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 13, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 23, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 12, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 21, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 12, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 19, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
On April 9, 2021, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On June 9, 2021, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
As described in more detail in the Notice,
The investment objective of the Trust would be to provide exposure to bitcoin at a price that is reflective of the actual bitcoin market where investors purchase and sell bitcoin, less the expense of the Trust's operation.
Each Share will represent a fractional undivided beneficial interest in the bitcoin held by the Trust. The Trust's assets will consist of bitcoin held by the Custodian on behalf of the Trust. The Trust generally does not intend to hold cash or cash equivalents. However, there may be situations where the Trust will unexpectedly hold cash on a temporary basis.
The Administrator will determine the NAV and NAV per Share of the Trust, on each day that the Exchange is open for regular trading, after 4:00 p.m. E.T. The NAV of the Trust is the aggregate value of the Trust's assets less its liabilities (which include estimated accrued but unpaid fees and expenses). In determining the Trust's NAV, the Administrator values the bitcoin held by the Trust on the basis of the price of bitcoin as determined by the Reference Rate.
The Trust will provide information regarding the Trust's bitcoin holdings, as well as an Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”) per Share updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the Exchange or a third-party financial data provider during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours (9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. E.T.). The IIV will be calculated by using the prior day's closing NAV per Share as a base and updating that value during Regular Trading Hours to reflect changes in the value of the Trust's bitcoin holdings during the trading day.
When the Trust sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in “in-kind” transactions in blocks of 50,000 Shares. Authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, bitcoin to the Trust's account with the Custodian in exchange for Shares when they purchase Shares, and the Trust, through the Custodian, will deliver bitcoin to such authorized participants when they redeem Shares with the Trust.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice,
1. What are commenters' views on whether the proposed Trust and Shares would be susceptible to manipulation? What are commenters' views generally on whether the Exchange's proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices? What are commenters' views generally with respect to the liquidity and transparency of the bitcoin markets, the bitcoin markets' susceptibility to manipulation, and thus the suitability of bitcoin as an underlying asset for an exchange-traded product?
2. What are commenters' views of the Exchange's assertion that regulatory and financial landscapes relating to bitcoin and other digital assets have changed significantly since 2016?
3. The Exchange states that “approving this proposal . . . [would] allow U.S. investors with access to bitcoin in a regulated and transparent exchange-traded vehicle that would act to limit risk” associated with exposure through other means.
4. According to the Exchange, “[n]early every measurable metric related to [Chicago Mercantile Exchange's] Bitcoin Futures has trended consistently up since launch and/or accelerated upward in the past year.”
5. What are commenters' views on the Exchange's statement, generally, that bitcoin is resistant to price manipulation and that other means to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices exist to justify dispensing with the requisite surveillance sharing agreement with a regulated market of significant size related to bitcoin?
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 proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and 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 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by August 19, 2021. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by September 2, 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.
On November 30, 2020, New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On January 13, 2021, the Commission extended to March 1, 2021, the time period in which to approve the
The Commission is publishing notice of the filing of Amendment No. 2 to solicit comment from interested persons, and is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
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 make permanent Commentaries .01(a) and (b) and .06 to Rule 7.35A (DMM-Facilitated Core Open and Trading Halt Auctions) and Commentaries .01 and .03 to Rule 7.35B (DMM-Facilitated Closing Auctions) and make related changes to Rules 7.32 (Order Entry), 7.35C (Exchange-Facilitated Closing Auctions), 46B (Regulatory Trading Official), and 47 (Floor Officials—Unusual Situations).
In connection with the closing of the Trading Floor facilities located at 11 Wall Street in New York City as of March 23, 2020 and moving the Exchange, on a temporary basis, to fully electronic trading,
Specifically, Commentary .01 to Rule 7.35A provides:
For a temporary period that begins March 23, 2020, when the Trading Floor facilities have been closed pursuant to Rule 7.1(c)(3), and ends on the earlier of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities to DMMs or after the Exchange closes on December 31, 2020:
(a) The percentage price parameters in paragraph (c)(1)(G) and (c)(2) of this Rule are suspended and a DMM may not effect a Core Open or Trading Halt Auction electronically if the Core Open or Trading Halt Auction Price will be more than 10% away from the Consolidated Last Sale Price.
(b) The volume parameters in paragraph (c)(1)(H) of this Rule are suspended.
(c) The requirement to publish a pre-opening indication pursuant to paragraph (d) of this Rule before either a Core Open or Trading Halt Auction is suspended.
Commentary .06 to Rule 7.35A provides:
For a temporary period that begins on June 17, 2020 and ends on the earlier of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities to DMMs or after the Exchange closes on December 31, 2020, the Applicable Price Range specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(A) and (B) of this Rule is suspended and the Applicable Price Range will be 10% for securities with an Indication Reference Price higher than $3.00 and $0.30 for securities with an Indication Reference Price equal to or lower than $3.00.
Commentary .01 to Rule 7.35B provides:
For a temporary period that begins March 23, 2020, when the Trading Floor facilities have been closed pursuant to Rule 7.1(c)(3), and ends on the earlier of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities to DMMs or after the Exchange closes on December 31, 2020:
(a) The percentage price parameters in paragraph (c)(1)(G) of this Rule are suspended and a DMM may not effect a Closing Auction electronically if the Closing Auction Price will be more than 10% away from the Exchange Last Sale Price.
(b) The volume parameters in paragraph (c)(1)(H) of this Rule are suspended
Finally, Commentary .03 to Rule 7.35B provides:
For a temporary period that begins on June 17, 2020 and ends on the earlier of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities to DMMs or after the Exchange closes on December 31, 2020, Floor Broker Interest will not be eligible to participate in the Closing Auction.
The Exchange proposes to make permanent the parameters for DMM-facilitated electronic auctions that are currently in effect on a temporary basis as set forth in Commentaries .01(a) and (b) to Rule 7.35A and Commentary .01 to Rule 7.35B, with one proposed change for Trading Halt Auctions.
Current Rules 7.35A(c)(1)(G) and (H) provide that a DMM may not effect a Core Open or Trading Halt Auction electronically if (i) the Auction Price will be more than 4% away from the Consolidated Last Sale Price,
Current Rule 7.35B(c)(1)(G) and (H) provide that a DMM may not effect a Closing Auction electronically if (i) the Auction Price will be more than a designated percentage away from the Exchange Last Sale Price,
The Exchange proposes to make the price percentage parameter 10% and eliminate the volume restrictions for DMM-facilitated Core Open Auctions and Closing Auctions. These parameters are currently in effect on a temporary basis pursuant to Commentaries .01(a) and (b) to Rule 7.35A and Commentary .01 to Rule 7.35B not only for Core Open Auctions and Closing Auctions, but also for Trading Halt Auctions. The Exchange believes that making these temporary Commentaries permanent would promote fair and orderly DMM-facilitated Core Open Auctions and Closing Auctions. For DMM-facilitated Trading Halt Auctions, the Exchange proposes to make the price parameter 5% (instead of 10%) and eliminate the volume restrictions.
In particular, DMMs have been operating with the temporary parameters for Core Open, Trading Halt Auctions, and Closing Auctions since March 23, 2020. Accordingly, these temporary parameters have been in effect not only during the period when the Trading Floor was closed in full, but also for the period when the Trading Floor has partially reopened to reduced staff of DMM and Floor brokers firms. In addition, these temporary parameters have been in effect during periods of both extreme volatility and high trading volumes. Accordingly, DMMs have had over six months' of experience of electronically facilitating Auctions within these temporary parameters and apply them during varying market conditions.
The Exchange has observed that during the period when these temporary parameters have been in effect, DMMs have facilitated more Core Open Auctions electronically, resulting in a higher percentage of Core Open Auctions occurring within two seconds of 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time. For example, in February 2020, which was before the Trading Floor closed, DMMs effected electronically 85.9% of all Core Open Auctions and 75.9% of Core Open Auctions in S&P 500 securities. By contrast, for the period July 2020 through October 2020, after when DMMs had returned to the Trading Floor, DMMs effected electronically 96% of all Core Open Auctions and 89.6% of Core Open Auctions in S&P 500 securities. The increased number of DMM electronically-facilitated Core Open Auctions has resulted in more Core Open Auctions occurring close to the beginning of Core Trading Hours. For example, in February 2020, 85.9% of all Core Open Auctions, and 75.9% of Core Open Auctions in S&P 500 securities, occurred within two seconds of 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time. By contrast, for the period July 2020 through October 2020, 95.9% of all Core Open Auctions, and 89.6% of Core Open Auctions in S&P 500 securities, occurred within two seconds of 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.
The Exchange has observed similar trends for Closing Auctions, with DMMs facilitating more Closing Auctions electronically, which means more Closing Auctions occurring closer to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. In February 2020, DMMs effected electronically 57% of all Closing Auctions and 5.5% of Closing Auctions in S&P 500 securities. By contrast, for the period July 2020 through October 2020, DMMs effected electronically 90.9% of all Closing Auctions, and 53.6% of Closing Auctions in S&P 500 securities. Currently, DMM electronically-facilitated Closing Auctions occur shortly after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Exchange also notes that during the period when the temporary parameters have been in place, the Exchange has not observed greater auction price dislocation compared to the period immediately preceding implementation of these temporary parameters, and has even observed modest improvement. The Exchange defines auction price dislocation as the difference between the Core Open Auction price and the consolidated
The Exchange also observed similar trends in the Closing Auction price dislocation statistics. In February 2020, the Exchange's average Closing Auction Price Dislocation was 0.82x a security's average spread; for the period July 2020 through October 2020, the average was 0.69x a security's average spread.
To effect these changes, the Exchange proposes to:
• Amend Rule 7.35A(c)(1)(G) to replace the current 4% price parameter for Core Open Auctions with a 10% price parameter and amend Rule 7.35A(c)(1)(H) to replace the current 4% price parameter for Trading Halt Auctions with a 5% price parameter. Because the proposed price parameter would be 10% for Core Open Auctions, the Exchange believes that the need for the double-wide parameters set forth in Rule 7.35A(c)(2) for Core Open Auctions would no longer be necessary and the Exchange proposes to delete that text.
• Delete the volume parameters specified in Rule 7.35A(c)(1)(H).
• Amend Rule 7.35A(j)(1)(A) to delete reference to volume parameters.
• Amend Rule 7.35B(c)(1)(G) to replace the reference to “designated percentage” parameter for the Closing Auction with a 10% price parameter. The Exchange further proposes to delete the chart specifying the designated percentages for the Closing Auction.
• Delete Rule 7.35B(c)(1)(H).
• Delete Commentaries .01(a) and (b) to Rule 7.35A.
• Delete the entirety of Commentary .01 to Rule 7.35B.
The Exchange proposes to maintain Commentary .01(c) to Rule 7.35A, which provides that for a temporary period that begins March 23, 2020, when the Trading Floor facilities have been closed pursuant to Rule 7.1(c)(3), and ends on the earlier of a full reopening of the Trading Floor facilities to DMMs or after the Exchange closes on December 31, 2020, the requirement to publish a pre-opening indication pursuant to Rule 7.35A(d) before either a Core Open Auction or Trading Halt Auction is suspended. The Exchange proposes non-substantive amendments to delete subparagraph (c) numbering and move the text of that subparagraph into the body of Commentary .01.
The Exchange proposes to make permanent that the Applicable Price Range for determining whether to publish a pre-opening indication for a Core Open Auction would be 10% for securities with an Indication Reference Price higher than $3.00 and $0.30 for securities with an Indication Reference Price equal to or lower than $3.00, which is currently in effect on a temporary basis, as set forth in Commentary .06 to Rule 7.35A. The Exchange further proposes that the Applicable Price Range for determining whether to publish a pre-opening indication for a Trading Halt Auction would be 5% for securities with an Indication Reference Price over $3.00 and $0.15 for securities with an Indication Reference Price equal to or lower than $3.00.
Rule 7.35A(d)(1)(A) currently provides that a DMM will publish a pre-opening indication before a security opens or reopens if the Core Open or Trading Halt Auction is anticipated to be a change of more than the “Applicable Price Range,” as specified in Rule 7.35A(d)(3), from a specified “Indication Reference Price,” as specified in Rule 7.35A(d)(2).
Rule 7.35A(d)(3)(A) provides that the Applicable Price Range will be 5% for securities with an Indication Reference Price over $3.00 and $0.15 for securities with an Indication Reference Price equal to or lower than $3.00. Rule 7.35A(d)(3)(B) further provides that,
If as of 9:00 a.m., the E-mini S&P 500 Futures are +/−2% from the prior day's closing price of the E-mini S&P 500 Futures, when reopening trading following a market-wide trading halt under Rule 7.12, or if the Exchange determines that it is necessary or appropriate for the maintenance of a fair and order market, the Applicable Price Range for determining whether to publish a pre-opening indication will be 10% for securities with an Indication Reference Price over $3.00 and $0.30 for securities with an Indication Reference Price equal to or lower than $3.00.
Current Rule 7.35A(1)(A) further provides that a DMM may not effect a Core Open or Trading Halt Auction electronically if a pre-opening indication has been published for the Core Open Auction. Accordingly, Exchange Rules already provide for a correlation between pre-opening indications and whether a DMM may effect a Core Open or Trading Halt Auction electronically. Currently, that is achieved through similar, though not identical, percentage parameters: The price parameter for DMM-facilitated electronic Core Open and Trading Halt Auctions is 4% and the Applicable Price Range for pre-opening indications is 5%. When there is market-wide volatility, both are doubled.
The Exchange believes that because of this existing correlation, in connection with permanently widening the price parameters for DMM-facilitated electronic Core Open Auctions to 10%, the Applicable Price Range for determining whether to publish a pre-opening indication should similarly not only be widened, but also be aligned to 10%. Similarly, because the price parameters for DMM-facilitated electronic Trading Halt Auctions would be 5%, the Applicable Price Range for determining whether to publish a pre-opening indication should be aligned to be 5%. With these proposed changes, if there is a significant enough price movement to require a DMM to effect a Core Open or Trading Halt Auction manually, the DMM would be required to publish a pre-opening indication for such Core Open or Trading Halt Auction. The Exchange notes that if a DMM chooses to facilitate a Core Open Auction or Trading Halt Auction manually (
The Exchange does not believe that permanently widening the Applicable Price Range for when a DMM is required to publish a pre-opening indication would reduce transparency in connection with Core Open Auctions. The Exchange currently disseminates Auction Imbalance Information for all Core Open Auctions.
To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to combine and amend current Rule 7.35A(d)(3)(A) and (B) to make it a single subparagraph (A) that would provide that the Applicable Price Range for determining whether to publish a pre-opening indication for a Core Open Auction would be 10% for securities with an Indication Reference Price over $3.00 and $0.30 for securities with an Indication Reference Price equal to or lower than $3.00. The Exchange proposes to delete the introductory text to Rule 7.35A(d)(3)(B) regarding circumstances when the Exchange could widen the Applicable Price Range under the current Rule. The Exchange further proposes new text for Rule 7.35A(d)(3)(B) that would provide that the Applicable Price Range for determining whether to publish a pre-opening indication for a Trading Halt Auction would be 5% for securities with an Indication Reference Price over $3.00 and $0.15 for securities with an Indication Reference Price equal to or lower than $3.00. The Exchange further proposes to delete Commentary .06 to Rule 7.35A.
The Exchange proposes to make permanent that Floor Broker Interest would not be eligible to participate in the Closing Auction, as set forth in Commentary .03 to Rule 7.35B. The term “Floor Broker Interest” is defined in Rule 7.35(a)(9) to mean orders represented orally by a Floor broker at the point of sale.
Rule 7.35B(a)(1) currently provides that Floor Broker Interest is eligible to participate in the Closing Auction provided that the Floor broker has electronically entered such interest before the Auction Processing Period for the Closing Auction begins. The Rule further provides that for such interest to be eligible to participate in the Closing Auction, a Floor broker must first, by the end of, but not after, Core Trading Hours, orally represent Floor Broker Interest at the point of sale, including symbol, side, size, and limit price, and then second, electronically enter such interest after the end of Core Trading Hours. Current Rules 7.35B(a)(1)(B) and (C) set forth additional requirements relating to electronic acceptance of such interest by the DMM and circumstances when such interest can be cancelled.
On June 17, 2020, when the Exchange reopened the Trading Floor to limited numbers of DMMs, the Exchange added Commentary .03 to Rule 7.35B. Accordingly, from June 17, 2020 to the present, even though reduced numbers of DMMs and Floor brokers are present on the Trading Floor, Floor Broker Interest has not been eligible to participate in the Closing Auction.
During this period, the Exchange has observed that even in the absence of Floor Broker Interest, Floor broker participation in Closing Auctions has returned to similar levels of Floor broker participation in the Closing Auction for the period before March 23, 2020. For example, in February 2020, 34.5% of Auction-Only Orders for the Closing Auction were entered as Closing D Orders, which are available only to Floor brokers.
Based on this experience, the Exchange proposes to make permanent Commentary .03 to Rule 7.35B. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35B(a)(1) to provide that Floor Broker Interest would not be eligible to participate in the Closing Auction. To provide clarity that a Floor broker would not be permitted to represent verbal interest intended for the Closing Auction, the Exchange further proposes to provide that Floor brokers must enter any orders for the Closing Auction, as defined in Rule 7.31, electronically during Core Trading Hours. The Exchange believes that the cross-reference to Rule 7.31 in the Rule would provide notice to Floor brokers and their customers of which order types are available for electronic entry by Floor brokers for the Closing Auction, which include both Auction-Only Orders described in Rule 7.31(c) and other orders that may be resting on the Exchange Book that are eligible to participate in the Closing Auction. The Exchange also proposes to delete Commentary .03 to Rule 7.35B.
The Exchange proposes to make related changes by deleting the clause “and Floor Broker Interest intended for the Closing Auction as defined in Rule 7.35B(a)(1)” from Rule 7.32. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to delete the text
In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 46B and amend Rule 47(b). Under Rule 47, Floor Officials have the authority to “supervise and regulate active openings and unusual situations that may arise in connection with the making of bids, offers or transactions on the Floor.” The Exchange recently amended its rules to add Regulatory Trading Officials (“RTO”), which are defined in Rule 46B.
Because the Exchange proposes to eliminate verbal bids or verbal offers for the Closing Auction, the Exchange proposes to delete the last clause of Rule 47(a) and subparagraph (b) to Rule 47.
The Exchange also proposes to delete Commentary .02 to Rule 7.35B. This Commentary is obsolete because it has not been in effect since May 22, 2020.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to make permanent the parameters for DMM-facilitated electronic Core Open Auctions and Closing Auctions that are currently in effect on a temporary basis as set forth in Commentaries .01(a) and (b) to Rule 7.35A and Commentary .01 to Rule 7.35B would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the Exchange believes that these updated parameters would promote fair and orderly Auctions on the Exchange. These temporary parameters have been in effect not only during the period when the Trading Floor was closed in full, but also for the period when the Trading Floor has partially reopened to reduced staff of DMM and Floor brokers firms. In addition, these temporary parameters have been in effect during periods of both extreme volatility and high trading volumes. Accordingly, DMMs have had over six months' of experience of electronically facilitating Auctions within these temporary parameters and applying them during varying market conditions.
During this period, the Exchange has observed that with these temporary parameters, a higher number of Core Open Auctions and Closing Auctions have been electronically facilitated by the DMM, which has resulted in a greater number of Core Open Auctions and Closing Auctions occurring shortly after 9:30 a.m. or 4:00 p.m., respectively. The Exchange has further observed that there have been modest improvements in auction price dislocation during the period when these temporary parameters have been in place. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that making these parameters permanent would promote the continued fair and orderly operation of Auctions for Exchange-listed securities.
In addition, the Exchange further believes that the proposed 5% percentage parameter for DMM-facilitated electronic Trading Halt Auctions would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because this percentage parameter would be aligned with the initial collars applicable to electronic reopening auctions following a MWCB Halt or trading pause on the automated primary listing exchanges that do not have trading floors.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to make permanent that the Applicable Price Range for determining whether to publish a pre-opening indication for a Core Open Auction would be 10% for securities with an Indication Reference Price
Exchange rules already provide for a correlation between the parameters for when a DMM may facilitate an Auction electronically and the Applicable Price Range for determining whether to disseminate a pre-opening indication. The Exchange believes that the proposed Applicable Price Ranges should be aligned with the Exchange's proposed parameters for when a DMM may facilitate an Auction electronically. Specifically, with this proposed change, if there is a significant enough price movement to require a DMM to effect a Core Open or Trading Halt Auction manually, the DMM would be required to publish a pre-opening indication for such Core Open or Trading Halt Auction. The Exchange notes that if a DMM chooses to facilitate a Core Open Auction or Trading Halt Auction manually (
The Exchange does not believe that permanently widening the Applicable Price Range for when a DMM is required to publish a pre-opening indication would reduce transparency in connection with Core Open Auctions. The Exchange currently disseminates Auction Imbalance Information for Core Open Auctions and Trading Halt Auctions. Since August 2019, when the Exchange transitioned Exchange-listed securities to the Pillar trading platform, all Floor broker orders for the Core Open and Trading Halt Auctions must be entered electronically. Accordingly, all such interest is reflected in the Auction Imbalance Information, which was not the case before the Exchange transitioned to Pillar. Accordingly, the Auction Imbalance Information includes information about all buy and sell orders entered in advance of such Auctions.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to make permanent that Floor Broker Interest would not be eligible to participate in the Closing Auction, which is currently in effect on a temporary basis as set forth in Commentary .03 to Rule 7.35B, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because it would promote fair and orderly Closing Auctions on the Exchange.
The Exchange has observed that even in the absence of Floor Broker Interest, Floor broker participation in the Closing Auction has returned, and indeed increased, as compared to the level of Floor broker participation in the Closing Auction for February 2020. Moreover, even when Floor Broker Interest was available to participate in Closing Auctions, such interest represented only 0.1% of total Floor broker orders that participated in Closing Auctions. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change would materially alter Floor brokers' ability to meaningfully participate in the Closing Auction. Moreover, in the absence of Floor Broker Interest, the Exchange was able to move the time for DMM-facilitated electronic Closing Auctions from 4:02 p.m. to shortly after 4:00. By making this change permanent, DMM-facilitated electronic Closing Auctions would continue to occur shortly after 4:00.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed amendments to Rules 7.32, 7.35, 46B, and 47(b) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because such rules would no longer be necessary in the absence of Floor Broker Interest for the Closing Auction. Accordingly, these proposed rule changes would promote transparency and clarity by removing references that would be obsolete.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission requested comment on, among other things: (1) Whether the primary listing exchanges should harmonize their respective processes for reopening trading by fully automated auction after a limit-up/limit-down (“LULD”) pause or a Level 1 or Level 2 market-wide circuit breaker (“MWCB”) halt;
After careful review, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, for the reasons discussed below.
The Commission finds that the proposed change to establish wider permanent parameters for DMM-facilitated electronic Core Open Auctions and Closing Auctions is reasonably designed to promote fair and orderly Auctions on the Exchange. The Commission notes that DMMs have had over six months of experience of electronically facilitating Auctions within these parameters under temporary rules of the Exchange and that the Exchange's proposal includes statistics indicating that, during this six-month period, a higher percentage of Core Open Auctions and Closing Auctions have occurred shortly after 9:30 a.m. or 4:00 p.m., respectively, and that this increase has not been accompanied by an increase in auction price dislocation, but has instead been accompanied by a modest improvement.
The Commission also finds that the proposed 5% percentage parameter for DMM-facilitated electronic Trading Halt Auctions is reasonably designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because this change would align the percentage parameters for immediate electronic reopening auctions after a MWCB halt or trading pause with the initial collars applicable to electronic reopening auctions on the other primary listing exchanges.
The Exchange proposes to make permanent that the Applicable Price Range for determining whether to publish a pre-opening indication for a Core Open Auction would be 10% for securities with an Indication Reference Price higher than $3.00 and $0.30 for securities with an Indication Reference Price equal to or lower than $3.00. The Exchange also proposes to change its rules to provide for an Applicable Price Range for Trading Halt Auctions of 5% for securities with an Indication Reference Price higher than $3.00 and $0.15 for securities with an Indication Reference Price equal to or lower than $3.00. The Commission finds that these changes are reasonably designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by promoting fair and orderly Auctions on the Exchange because they would align the parameters within which a DMM may facilitate an Auction electronically and the Applicable Price Range for determining whether to disseminate a pre-opening indication (which, under the Exchange's rules, prevents a DMM from facilitating an auction electronically). Additionally, the Commission does not believe that widening the Applicable Price Range that governs when a DMM is required to publish a pre-opening indication would reduce transparency in the market because all buy and sell orders entered in advance of Core Open and Trading Halt Auctions are already reflected in Auction Imbalance Information.
The Commission finds that the proposal to make permanent that Floor Broker Interest—orders represented orally by a Floor broker at the point of sale—would not be eligible to participate in the Closing Auction is reasonably designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by promoting fair and orderly Closing Auctions on the Exchange, because precluding participation by Floor Broker Interest has enabled the exchange to hold DMM-facilitated electronic Closing Auctions more quickly after the 4:00 p.m. scheduled close of trading and because Floor brokers will remain able to participate in the Closing Auction through the use of Closing D Orders.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular Section 6(b)(5) because it is reasonably designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 2 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.
As noted above, in Amendment No. 2, as compared to the original proposal,
Therefore, the Commission finds that Amendment No. 2 to the proposal raises no novel regulatory issues, that it is reasonably designed to protect investors and the public interest, and that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of ALABAMA dated 07/22/2021.
Issued on 07/22/2021.
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 17050 8 and for economic injury is 17051 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Alabama, Florida.
Small Business Administration.
60-Day notice; request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, as amended, to solicit public comments on the information collection described below. The PRA requires
Submit comments on or before September 27, 2021.
Comments should refer to the information collection by title or OMB Control Number (3245-0417) and submitted by the deadline above to:
You may obtain information including a copy of the forms and supporting documents from the Agency Clearance Officer, Curtis Rich, at (202) 205-7030, or
Section 1102 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Public Law 116-136, authorized SBA to guarantee loans made by banks or other financial institutions under a temporary program titled the “Paycheck Protection Program” (PPP). These loans were available to eligible small businesses, certain non-profit organizations, veterans' organizations, Tribal business concerns, independent contractors, and self-employed individuals adversely impacted by the COVID-19 Emergency. SBA's authority to guarantee PPP loans expired on August 8, 2020. On December 27, 2020, SBA received reauthorization under the Economic Aid Act, Public Law 116-260, to resume guaranteeing PPP loans through March 31, 2021. The Economic Aid Act also allowed certain eligible borrowers that previously received a PPP loan to receive a second draw PPP loan (“Second Draw PPP Loan Program”) and amended certain other PPP statutory provisions. On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act, Public Law 117-2, was enacted, amending various PPP statutory provisions. On March 30, 2021, the PPP Extension Act of 2021 was enacted, extending the SBA's PPP program authority through June 30, 2021.
This information collection is used for the Second Draw PPP Loan Program. Since the initial approval of this information collection on January 8, 2021, the information collection has been amended twice to meet the ever-evolving needs of the PPP program, as necessitated by a statutory program amendments, public feedback, or other factors. The information collection is currently approved under the emergency procedures authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3507(j) and 5 CFR 1320.13; this approval is set to expire on September 30, 2021.
Although SBA's program authority has expired, this information collection may still be needed in connection with pending litigation. Therefore, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, SBA is publishing this notice as a prerequisite to seeking OMB's approval to use this information collection beyond September 30, 2021. There are no proposed changes to any of the forms.
SBA invites the public to submit comments, including specific and detailed suggestions on ways to improve the collection and reduce the burden on respondents. Commenters should also address (i) whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of SBA's functions, including whether it has any practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the estimated burdens; (iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden on those who are required to respond.
Small Business Administration
60-Day notice; request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing this notice in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, as amended, to solicit public comments on the information collection described below. The PRA requires publication of this notice before submitting the information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Submit comments on or before September 27, 2021.
Comments should refer to the information collection by title or OMB Control Number (3245-0407) and submitted by the deadline above to:
You may obtain information including a copy of the forms and supporting documents from the Agency Clearance Officer, Curtis Rich, at (202) 205-7030, or
Section 1102 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Public Law 116-136, authorized SBA to guarantee loans made by banks or other financial institutions under a temporary program titled the “Paycheck Protection Program” (PPP). These loans were available to eligible small businesses, certain non-profit organizations, veterans' organizations, Tribal business concerns, independent contractors, and self-employed individuals adversely impacted by the COVID-19 Emergency. SBA's authority to guarantee PPP loans expired on August 8, 2020. On December 27, 2020, SBA received reauthorization under the Economic Aid Act, Public Law 116-260, to resume guaranteeing PPP loans through March 31, 2021. The Economic
Subject to certain limitations, proceeds of a PPP loan may be used for payroll costs, costs related to the continuation of group health care, life, disability, vision or dental benefits during periods of paid sick, medical or family leave and group health care, life, disability, vision, or dental insurance premiums, mortgage interest payments, rent payments, utility payments, interest payments on other debt incurred prior to February 15, 2020, refinancing of an eligible SBA Economic Injury Disaster Loan, covered operations expenditures, covered property damage costs, covered supplier costs, and covered worker protection expenditures. Under section 7A of the Small Business Act, a PPP loan may be forgiven in full or in part if the PPP borrower used the proceeds for the eligible purposes during the loan forgiveness covered period.
Since the initial approval on April 6, 2020, this information collection has been amended multiple times to meet the ever-evolving needs of the program, as necessitated by statutory program amendments, public feedback, or other factors. The information collection is currently approved under the emergency procedures authorized by 44 U.S.C. 3507(j) and 5 CFR 1320.13; this approval is set to expire on September 30, 2021. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, SBA is publishing this notice as a prerequisite to seeking OMB's approval to use this information collection beyond September 30, 2021.
SBA has received multiple comments on this information collection. A substantial number of the commenters focused almost exclusively on SBA Form 3509, “Loan Necessity Questionnaire (For-Profit Borrowers)” and SBA Form 3510, “Loan Necessity Questionnaire (Non-Profit Borrowers)” and urged SBA to remove them from the collection and not impose additional reporting requirements on Borrowers. After extensive evaluation, SBA is discontinuing the use of these two forms.
Because SBA's authority to guarantee PPP loans expired on June 30, 2021, SBA will no longer be approving new lenders to participate in PPP. For that reason, SBA is removing SBA Form 3506, “CARES Act Section 1102 Lender Agreement” and SBA Form 3507, “CARES Act Section 1102 Lender Agreement—Non-Bank and Non-Insured Depository Institution Lenders.”
Except for the four forms identified above, all other components of this information collection will still be needed for various reasons, including reporting by lenders, ongoing loan reviews and requests for loan forgiveness. SBA is proposing to make the following amendments to the information to be collected after expiration of the program authority:
(A) SBA Form 3508, “Paycheck Protection Program, Loan Forgiveness Application Form 3508” and Instructions; SBA Form 3508EZ “Paycheck Protection Program, PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form 3508EZ” and Instructions; and SBA Form 3508S, “Paycheck Protection Program, PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form 3508S” and Instructions:
• Revise to reflect changes made to the calculation of payroll costs by Schedule C filers under the interim final rule titled “Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection Program Revisions to Loan Amount Calculation and Eligibility” (86 FR 13149, March 8, 2021).
• Revise to incorporate payroll cost exclusions required by the American Rescue Plan Act.
• Add fields to capture the amount and date of a loan increase.
• Delete the question (and related instructions) asking if the borrower together with affiliates has $2 million or more in PPP loans.
• Add Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to the header of the “Business TIN” field.
• Relocate the optional demographic information collection box to earlier in the form.
(B) SBA Form 3508S, “Paycheck Protection Program, PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form 3508S” and Instructions only:
• Identify data fields that will be pre-populated when a PPP borrower submits an electronic version of the SBA Form 3508S via SBA's Paycheck Protection Platform (SBA's Platform).
• Add instructions regarding submission of an electronic version of the SBA Form 3508S via SBA's Platform.
• Add information about use of a COVID Revenue Reduction Score.
(C) SBA Form 3508D, “Paycheck Protection Program, Borrower's Disclosure of Certain Controlling Interests”:
• Revise to allow for direct borrower submission of the form via SBA's Platform.
(D) [No Form Number] “Lender Reporting Requirements Concerning Requests for Loan Forgiveness”:
• Provide an optional process for lenders to allow their PPP borrowers to submit an electronic version of SBA Form 3508S through SBA's Platform.
• Provide an optional process for lenders to use SBA's Platform to perform reviews of, issue forgiveness decisions on, and request forgiveness payments on SBA Form 3508S forgiveness applications submitted by their PPP borrowers.
• Provide an optional process for lenders to obtain and use a COVID Revenue Reduction Score to confirm revenue reduction for certain Second Draw PPP Loan borrowers.
(E) [No Form Number] “Lender Reporting Requirements for Loan Review”:
• Delete requirement for SBA to review all loans of $2 million or more.
SBA invites the public to submit comments, including specific and detailed suggestions on ways to improve the collection and reduce the burden on respondents. Commenters should also address (i) whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of SBA's functions, including whether it has any practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the estimated burdens; (iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden on those who are required to respond.
On July 9, 2021, C&NC Railroad, LLC (C&NC), filed a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to discontinue service over approximately 21 miles of rail line extending from milepost CB 5.4 at Beesons, Ind., to milepost 25.30 at New Castle, Ind., and from milepost R 0.1 to milepost R 1.16 at New Castle (the Line). The Line traverses U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes 47327, 47357, 47362, 47366, 47331, and 47387.
C&NC states that it provides service on the Line pursuant to a lease with Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), which owns the Line. (Pet. 1.)
C&NC states that it has no information indicating that the Line contains federally granted rights-of-way and, if it discovers any information regarding federally granted rights-of-way, it will be made available to those requesting it. (
By issuance of this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by October 27, 2021.
Because this is a discontinuance proceeding and not an abandonment, interim trail use/rail banking and public use conditions are not appropriate. Because there will be environmental review during any subsequent abandonment, this discontinuance does not require an environmental review.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) for subsidy under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 120 days after the filing of the petition for exemption, or 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption, whichever occurs sooner.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to Docket No. AB 1093 (Sub-No. 2X) and should be filed with the Surface Transportation Board via e-filing on the Board's website. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on C&NC's representative, William H. Stewart III, Vuono & Gray, LLC, 310 Grant St., Suite 2310, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Replies to the petition are due on or before August 18, 2021.
Persons seeking further information concerning discontinuance procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0238 or refer to the full abandonment and discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transportation.
Public meeting/notice of availability for draft Air Tour Management Plans at Mount Rainier National Park; Death Valley National Park; Everglades National Park; and Olympic National Park.
The FAA, in cooperation with the National Park Service (NPS), has initiated development of Air Tour Management Plans (ATMPs) for Mount Rainier National Park, Death Valley National Park, Everglades National Park, and Olympic National Park (collectively referred to as the Parks) pursuant to the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 and its implementing regulations. This notice announces the public availability of the proposed ATMPs for comment and public meetings for each of the Parks. The purpose of these meetings is to review the proposed ATMPs and further ATMP development with the public. The proposed ATMPs provide acceptable and effective measures to mitigate or prevent the significant adverse impacts, if any, of commercial air tour operations upon the natural and cultural resources, visitor experiences, and tribal lands. In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the FAA and the NPS are also seeking public comment on the potential of the proposed ATMPs to cause adverse effects to historic properties.
Comments will be received on the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment System (PEPC) website. Each park's website link is below:
• Mount Rainer National Park—
• Death Valley National Park—
• Everglades National Park—
• Olympic National Park—
• Monday, August 16, 2021 (4:30-6:00 p.m. PT)—Mount Rainier National Park Livestream:
• Tuesday, August 17, 2021 (4:30-6:00 p.m. PT)—Death Valley National Park Livestream:
• Thursday, August 19, 2021 (6:30-8:00 p.m. ET)—Everglades National Park Livestream:
• Wednesday, August 25, 2021 (5:30-7:00 p.m. PT)—Olympic National Park Livestream:
The meetings will be held virtually. Members of the public who wish to observe the virtual meetings can access the livestream from either of the following FAA social media platforms on the day of the event,
The FAA is issuing this notice pursuant to the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-181) and its implementing regulations contained in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 136, Subpart B, National Parks Air Tour Management. The objectives of the ATMPs are to develop acceptable and effective measures to mitigate or prevent the significant adverse impacts, if any, of commercial air tour operations upon the natural resources, cultural resources, and visitor experiences of the Parks and any tribal lands within or abutting the Parks. The FAA and the NPS are inviting comment from the public, Federal and state agencies, tribes, and other interested parties on the proposed ATMPs for Mount Rainier National Park, Death Valley National Park, Everglades National Park, and Olympic National Park.
The FAA and the NPS have determined that each ATMP constitutes a Federal undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800). The FAA and the NPS are consulting with tribes, State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, and other interested parties to identify historic properties and assess the potential effects of ATMPs on them.
The meetings will be open to the public and livestreamed. Members of the public who wish to observe the virtual meetings can access the livestream from either of the following FAA social media platforms on the day of the event,
The FAA and the NPS request that comments be as specific as possible in response to actions that are being proposed under this notice. All written comments become part of the official record. Written comments on the proposed ATMPs can also be submitted via PEPC or sent to the mailing addresses listed in the
Documents that describe each Park's ATMP project in greater detail are available at the following locations:
• FAA Air Tour Management Plan Program website,
• NPS Planning, Air Tours website,
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that it is issuing a Final General Conformity Determination (FCD) for the Bakersfield to Palmdale Section of the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) System.
Andréa Martin, Senior Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Railroad Policy and Development (RPD), telephone: (202) 493-6201, email:
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 (Section 327), the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA or Authority) has assumed FRA's environmental review responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
FRA prepared a Draft General Conformity Determination, pursuant to 40 CFR part 93, subpart B, which establishes the process for complying with the General Conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act. FRA published a notice in the
The Final General Conformity Determination was prepared in coordination with the Authority, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, and Eastern Kern, and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts. The analysis found that construction period emissions would exceed the General Conformity
The Final General Conformity Determination is available at
Issued in Washington, DC.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, 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 a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Appraisal Management Companies.”
You should submit written comments by September 27, 2021.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection beginning on the date of publication of the second notice for this collection
• Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of title 44 requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
States seeking to register AMCs must have an AMC registration and supervision program. Twelve CFR 34.213(a) requires each participating State to establish and maintain within its appraiser certifying and licensing agency a registration and supervision program with the legal authority and mechanisms to: (i) Review and approve or deny an application for initial registration; (ii) periodically review and renew or deny renewal of an AMC's registration; (iii) examine the books and records of the AMC operating in the State and require the AMC to submit reports, information, and documents; (iv) verify that the appraisers on an AMC's panel hold valid State certifications or licenses; (v) investigate and assess potential violations of appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders; (vi) discipline, suspend, terminate, or deny registration renewals of AMCs that violate appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders; and (vii) report violations of appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders as well as disciplinary and enforcement actions to the ASC.
Twelve CFR 34.213(b) requires each participating State to impose requirements on AMCs that are not owned and controlled by an insured depository institution and regulated by a Federal financial institutions regulatory agency to: (i) Register with and be subject to supervision by a State appraiser certifying and licensing agency in each State in which the AMC operates; (ii) engage only State-certified or State-licensed appraisers for Federally regulated transactions in conformity with any Federally regulated transaction regulations; (iii) establish and comply with processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC, in engaging an appraiser, selects an appraiser who is independent of the transaction and who has the requisite education, expertise, and experience to competently complete the appraisal assignment for the particular market and property type; (iv) direct the appraiser to perform the assignment in accordance with Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP); and (v) establish and comply with processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC conducts its appraisal management services in accordance with section 129E(a)-(i) of the Truth in Lending Act.
Twelve CFR 34.216 requires that each State electing to register AMCs for purposes of permitting AMCs to provide appraisal management services relating to covered transactions in the State must submit to the ASC the information required to be submitted under subpart H to part 34 and any additional information required by the ASC concerning AMCs that operate in the State.
Twelve CFR 34.212(b) provides that an appraiser in an AMC's network or panel is deemed to remain on the network or panel until: (i) The AMC sends a written notice to the appraiser removing the appraiser from the appraiser panel with an explanation of its action; or (ii) receives written notice from the appraiser asking to be removed from the appraiser panel or notice of the death or incapacity of the appraiser.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the information collection burden;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
This notice is provided in accordance with IRC section 6039G of the Health Insurance Portability and
(1) the authority under section 506(a)(2) of the FAA to direct the drawdown of up to $200,000,000 in articles and services from the inventory and resources of any agency of the United States Government and military education and training from the Department of Defense for the purposes and under the authorities of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962;
(2) the authority to make the determination under section 506(a)(2) of the FAA to direct such drawdown; and
(3) the authority under section 652 of the FAA to make, before any such drawdown, the required notifications to the Congress.