Natural Resources Conservation Service
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule and issuance of environmental assessment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to update the design to reflect changes provided by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and to extend the duration of the AP1000 design certification for an additional 5 years. The NRC is also issuing an environmental assessment.
The final rule is effective December 6, 2021, unless significant adverse comments are received by October 22, 2021. If the direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Daniel Doyle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-3748, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0269 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment
Because the NRC anticipates that this action will be non-controversial, the NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” for this rule. The rule will become effective on December 6, 2021. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by October 22, 2021, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this direct final rule and will subsequently address the comments received in any final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
A significant adverse comment is a comment in which the commenter explains why the rule (including the environmental assessment) would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if it meets the following criteria:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule.
For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the
The NRC is amending the design certification (DC) for the AP1000 standard plant design to extend the duration of the DC for 5 years, as proposed by the NRC staff in SECY-20-0082, “Rulemaking Plan to Extend the Duration of the AP1000 Design Certification,” dated September 8, 2020 (“rulemaking plan”), and approved by the Commission in SRM-SECY-20-0082, dated November 17, 2020. To issue this extension, the NRC must conclude that the standard design continues to meet the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the AEA), and the Commission's regulations. This action allows an applicant to reference the AP1000 design certification while the Commission considers potential changes to the duration and renewal of future and currently valid design certifications more broadly in a separate, ongoing rulemaking (Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing NRC-2009-0196; RIN 3150-AI66). The NRC also is updating the DC to reflect changes provided by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse), by letter dated March 19, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21081A023).
The purpose of the amendment is to extend by 5 years the period that the AP1000 DC is valid for referencing by an applicant and to include design changes previously approved by the NRC in multiple combined license proceedings. The extended duration aligns with the extended renewal period previously granted by the NRC to Westinghouse for the AP1000 DC in its exemption issued by letter dated February 14, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17265A099). With this duration extension, the AP1000 DC remains valid for referencing until February 27, 2026.
The AP1000 DC in appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” to part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” of title 10 of the
In the rulemaking plan, the NRC staff acknowledged that there were known design issues that it would need to assess in the rulemaking to determine their impact on the necessary safety and environmental findings. The following five aspects of the design were discovered to have issues after the NRC updated the design certification rule to incorporate Revision 19 of the AP1000 design control document (DCD) (ADAMS Accession No. ML11171A500) on December 30, 2011: (1) Passive core cooling system containment condensate return, (2) main control room dose, (3) main control room heatup, (4) hydrogen vent inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC), and (5) neutron flux logic operating bypass. Combined license holders and applicants have previously referenced and resolved these five design issues, and the NRC has approved the same changes to address the issues in multiple combined license applications and amendments.
After the NRC staff began assessing the known design issues for the rulemaking, Westinghouse indicated its preference to update the design to reflect the changes made in the previous applications referencing the AP1000 design. By letter dated March 19, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21081A023), Westinghouse submitted applicable AP1000 DCD markups and references that illustrate how: (1) The five issues have been corrected based on construction of the current AP1000 reactors for Southern Nuclear Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, and (2) Westinghouse has marked up the referenced DCD in accordance with those changes. The NRC staff used these references to verify the Westinghouse submitted DCD markups are the same as the design changes the NRC has previously reviewed and approved to address the design issues.
The NRC staff verified, as documented in the NRC staff's Verification Evaluation Report, that the corrected information provided in the markups is the same as has been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC for various combined license and license amendment applications. In reviewing those applications, the NRC staff determined that the design changes resolved the identified design issues, met the applicable regulations, and that the design as modified met the applicable requirements of the AEA and the NRC's regulations. Neither the applicable provisions of the AEA nor the NRC's regulations have changed since those applications were approved.
The following paragraphs describe the specific changes in this direct final rule.
This direct final rule amends appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 to incorporate amendments to the AP1000 generic design and to extend the duration of the design certification for the AP1000 standard plant design for 5 years.
This final rule revises paragraph A by making “document” and “is” plural.
This final rule revises paragraph A to include new documents. It also amends paragraph D by adding new paragraph D.3. to clarify which document controls if there is a conflict between the generic DCD and any of the safety evaluations listed in new paragraphs D.3.a. through D.3.f.
This final rule adds a new paragraph A.3. to show the regulations that are applicable to the generic AP1000 design as amended.
This final rule revises paragraphs B.1. to include the Verification Evaluation Report and note that the documents referenced in this paragraph have been amended by the supplemental information submitted by Westinghouse. It revises paragraph B.7 to include the NRC's final environmental assessment of the amendment and extension of the AP1000 DC.
This final rule revises the period of reference for Appendix D from 15 years to 20 years.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants or would apply to own such a plant do not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810).
The NRC has not prepared a regulatory analysis for this direct final rule. The NRC prepares regulatory analyses for rulemakings that establish generic regulatory requirements applicable to all licensees. Design certifications are not generic rulemakings in the sense that design certifications do not establish standards or requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather, design certifications are NRC approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking, which then may be voluntarily referenced by applicants for combined licenses or construction permits. For these reasons, the NRC concludes that preparation of a regulatory analysis is neither required nor appropriate.
The NRC has determined that this direct final rule does not constitute backfitting as defined in the backfit rule (§ 50.109) and does not affect the issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52.
This final rule extending the duration of the AP1000 design certification and adopting design changes does not constitute backfitting as defined in the backfit rule because the extension of the design certification does not affect any previously issued licenses. In addition, the design changes do not constitute backfitting because all existing licenses referencing the AP1000 standard design have previously been amended to adopt the same design changes incorporated by this rule, and the rule therefore does not result in modifications or additions to those facilities.
This rule does not affect the issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52 because the AP1000 design certification is not currently in effect under §§ 52.55 or 52.61, and therefore issue finality under § 52.63(a) does not apply to the AP1000 design certification rule.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).
The NRC has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the NRC's regulations in subpart A, “National Environmental Policy Act—Regulations Implementing Section 102(2),” of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” that this direct final rule, if confirmed, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC's generic determination in this regard, reflected in § 51.32(b)(1), is based upon the following considerations. A design certification rule does not authorize the siting, construction, or operation of a facility referencing any particular design, but only codifies a standard design certification in a rule (extending the AP1000 design certification and incorporating changes to the design in this case). The NRC will evaluate the environmental impacts and issue an environmental impact statement as appropriate under NEPA as part of the application for the construction and operation of a facility referencing any particular design certification rule.
The determination of this environmental assessment is that there will be no significant environmental impact from this action. The environmental assessment is available as indicated in the Availability of Documents section.
This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
This direct final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement States Programs,” approved by the Commission on June 20, 1997, and published in the
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Design certifications are not generic rulemakings establishing a generally applicable standard with which all 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 nuclear power plant licensees must comply. Design certifications are Commission approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking. Furthermore, design certifications are initiated by an applicant for rulemaking, rather than by the NRC. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at
This section contains instructions regarding how the non-publicly available documents related to this rule, and specifically the information contained in Enclosure 2 and Enclosure 4 of the March 19, 2021, letter from Westinghouse, “Information Submittal Related to the AP1000 Design Certification Extension,” may be accessed by interested persons who wish to comment on the design certification extension. These documents contain proprietary information and security-related information.
Interested persons who desire access to proprietary information or security-related information on the AP1000 design certification extension should first request access to that information from Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, the design certification applicant. A request for access should be submitted to the NRC if the applicant does not either grant or deny access by the 10-day deadline described in the following section.
Within 10 days after publication of this direct final rule, any individual or entity who believes access to proprietary information or security-related information is necessary in order to submit comments on this rule may request access to such information. Requests for access to proprietary information or security-related information submitted more than 10 days after publication of this document will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing explaining why the request could not have been filed earlier.
The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access proprietary information or security-related information to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The email address for the Office of the Secretary is
The request must include the following information:
(1) The name of this design certification, AP1000 Design Certification; the rulemaking identification number, RIN 3150-AK56; the rulemaking docket number, NRC-2020-0269; and the
(2) The name, address, and email or fax number of the requestor.
(3) The identity of the individual(s) to whom access is to be provided, including the identity of any expert, consultant, or assistant who will aid the requestor in evaluating the information.
(4) The requestor's need for the proprietary information or security-related information in order to prepare meaningful comments on the design certification extension must be demonstrated. Each of the following areas must be addressed with specificity:
(a) The specific issue or subject matter on which the requestor wishes to comment.
(b) An explanation why information which is publicly available is insufficient to provide the basis for developing meaningful comment on the AP1000 design certification extension rule with respect to the issue or subject matter described in paragraph 4.a. of this section.
(c) The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill, training or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the requested information to provide the basis for meaningful comment. Technical competence may be shown by reliance on a qualified expert, consultant, or assistant who satisfies these criteria.
(d) A chronology and discussion of the requestor's attempts to obtain the information from the design certification applicant, and the final communication from the requestor to the applicant and the applicant's response, if any was provided, with respect to the request for access to proprietary information or security-related information must be submitted.
Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph (4) of this section, as applicable, the NRC will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether the requestor has established a legitimate need for access to proprietary information or security-related information.
If the NRC determines that the requestor has established a legitimate need for access to proprietary information or security-related information, the NRC will notify the requestor in writing that access to proprietary information or security-related information has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit by each individual who will be granted access.
Any comments on this final rule that are based upon the disclosed proprietary information or security-related information must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information, or the close of the public comment period, whichever is later. The commenter must comply with all NRC requirements regarding the submission of proprietary information and security-related information to the NRC when submitting comments to the NRC (including marking and transmission requirements).
If the request for access to proprietary information or security-related information is denied by the NRC after a determination on requisite need, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with the NRC's Executive Director for Operations under § 9.29(d).
The NRC is incorporating by reference a document submitted by Westinghouse that updates the AP1000 DC, Revision 19. As described in the Discussion section of this document, the information submitted by Westinghouse includes the applicable AP1000 DC markups and references that illustrate how the five known design issues have been corrected and how Westinghouse has marked up the referenced DCD in accordance with those changes.
The NRC is required by law to obtain approval for incorporation by reference from the Office of the Federal Register. The Office of the Federal Register's requirements for incorporation by reference are set forth in 1 CFR part 51. These regulations require an agency to include in a direct final rule a discussion of the ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties. The discussion in this section complies with the requirement for direct final rules as set forth in 1 CFR 51.5(b)(2).
The NRC considers “interested parties” to include all potential NRC stakeholders, not only the individuals and entities regulated or otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight. These NRC stakeholders are not a homogeneous group but vary with respect to the considerations for determining reasonable availability. Therefore, the NRC distinguishes between different classes of interested parties for the purposes of determining whether the material is “reasonably available.” The NRC considers the following to be classes of interested parties in NRC rulemakings with regard
• Individuals and small entities regulated or otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight (this class also includes applicants and potential applicants for licenses and other NRC regulatory approvals) and who are subject to the material to be incorporated by reference by rulemaking. In this context, “small entities” has the same meaning as a “small entity” under § 2.810.
• Large entities otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight (this class also includes applicants and potential applicants for licenses and other NRC regulatory approvals) and who are subject to the material to be incorporated by reference by rulemaking. In this context, “large entities” are those that do not qualify as a “small entity” under § 2.810.
• Non-governmental organizations with institutional interests in the matters regulated by the NRC.
• Other Federal agencies, States, local governmental bodies (within the meaning of § 2.315(c)).
• Federally-recognized and State-recognized
• Members of the general public (
The NRC makes the materials incorporated by reference available for inspection to all interested parties, by appointment, at the NRC Technical Library, which is located at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 301-415-7000; email:
The NRC concludes that the materials the NRC is incorporating by reference in this final rule are reasonably available to all interested parties because the materials are available to all interested parties in multiple ways and in a manner consistent with their interest in the materials.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Combined license, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees, Incorporation by reference, Inspection, Issue finality, Limited work authorization, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor siting criteria, Redress of site, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard design certification.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 52:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 103, 104, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2235, 2236, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
A.
A. Tier 1, Tier 2 (including the investment protection short-term availability controls in Section 16.3), and the generic TSs in the AP1000 Design Control Document, Revision 19, (Public Version) (AP1000 DCD), APP-GW-GL-702, dated June 13, 2011, and the amendments thereto in DCP_NRC_003343, Supplemental Information to Support the AP1000 Design Certification Extension (Non-proprietary), APP-GW-GL-705 Rev. 0, copyright 2021 (Supplemental Information), are approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the generic DCD and Supplemental Information may be obtained from Zachary S. Harper, Manager, Licensing Engineering, Westinghouse Electric Company, 1000 Westinghouse Drive, Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania 16066, telephone (412) 374-5093. Copies of the generic DCD and Supplemental Information are also available for examination and copying at the NRC's PDR, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Copies are available, by appointment, for examination at the NRC Library, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, telephone (301) 415-5610, email
D. * * *
a. SE for Southern Nuclear Company's (SNC) Vogtle Units 3 and 4, respectively, license amendment request (LAR) 16-026, February 27, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17024A307);
b. SE for SNC Vogtle Units 3 and 4, respectively, LAR-17-023, April 20, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18085A628);
c. SE for SNC Vogtle Units 3 and 4, respectively, LAR 17-001, February 1, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18011A894);
d. SE for SNC Vogtle Units 3 and 4, respectively, LAR-17-003, August 23, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17213A224);
e. SE for SNC Vogtle Units 3 and 4, respectively, LAR-16-006, February 24, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16320A174);
f. SE for Florida Power and Light Company's Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 6 and 7, respectively, Chapter 16, “Technical Specifications,”
A. * * * The regulations that apply to those portions of the AP1000 design as amended by Supplemental Information are in 10 CFR parts 20, 50, 52, 73, and 100, codified as of December 6, 2021, that are applicable and technically relevant, as described in the SEs listed in paragraphs III.D.3.a through III.D.3.f of this appendix.
B. * * * All nuclear safety issues, except for the generic TS and other operational requirements, associated with the information in the FSER, Supplement Nos. 1 and 2, and the Verification Evaluation Report (ADAMS Accession No. ML21131A221); Tier 1 and Tier 2 (including referenced information, which the context indicates is intended as requirements, and the investment protection short-term availability controls in Section 16.3 of the DCD) as amended by Supplemental Information; and the rulemaking records for initial certification, Amendment 1, and the duration extension of the AP1000 design;
7. All environmental issues concerning severe accident mitigation design alternatives associated with the information in the NRC's EA for the AP1000 design, Appendix 1B of Revision 15 of the generic DCD, the NRC's final EA for Amendment 1 to the AP1000 design, Appendix 1B of Revision 19 of the generic DCD, and the NRC's final EA relating to the extension of the AP1000 standard design certification, for plants referencing this appendix whose site parameters are within those specified in the severe accident mitigation design alternatives evaluation.
This appendix may be referenced for a period of 20 years from February 27, 2006, except as provided for in 10 CFR 52.55(b) and 52.57(b). This appendix remains valid for an applicant or licensee who references this appendix until the application is withdrawn or the license expires, including any period of extended operation under a renewed license.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that was published in the
This correction is effective October 14, 2021. The effective date of AD 2021-17-14 remains October 14, 2021.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 14, 2021 (86 FR 50451, September 9, 2021).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact the CAAI, P.O. Box 1101, Golan Street, Airport City, 70100, Israel; telephone 972-3-9774665; fax 972-3-9774592; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226; email
AD 2021-17-14, Amendment 39-21697 (86 FR 50451, September 9, 2021) (AD 2021-17-14), requires non-destructive testing on the forward (front) spar vertical stiffener and rib 0 for any cracking, installation of a doubler to the forward (front) spar and rib 0 attachment, and repair if necessary. That AD applies to certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G280 airplanes.
As published, the document number of the CAAI AD specified in the preamble and regulatory text of AD 2021-17-14 is incorrect. The document number of the CAAI AD is incorrectly cited as “CAAI AD I-57-2020-06-01.” The correct document number should read as, “CAAI AD ISR-I-57-2020-06-01.”
CAAI AD ISR-I-57-2020-06-01, dated January 27, 2021, specifies procedures for non-destructive testing (high frequency, mid frequency, and bolt hole eddy current inspections; and a liquid (dye) penetrant inspection) for cracking on the forward (front) spar vertical stiffener and rib 0, installation of a doubler to the forward (front) spar and rib 0 attachment, and repair if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This document corrects an error and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13. Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, the FAA is publishing the entire rule in the
The effective date of this AD remains October 14, 2021.
Since this action only corrects the document number of the CAAI AD, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, the FAA has
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 14, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G280 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI) AD ISR-I-57-2020-06-01, dated January 27, 2021 (CAAI AD ISR-I-57-2020-06-01).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report that during full-scale fatigue testing, a crack was found in the area of the attachment of the wing rib 0 to the front spar. The FAA is issuing this AD to address any cracking at the area of the wing rib 0 to the front spar, which could affect the structural integrity of the wing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, CAAI AD ISR-I-57-2020-06-01.
Where CAAI AD ISR-I-57-2020-06-01 requires compliance “not later than 5,000 flight cycles,” this AD requires compliance before the accumulation of 5,000 total flight cycles since the date of issuance of the original Israeli airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original Israeli export certificate of airworthiness.
Although the service information referenced in CAAI AD ISR-I-57-2020-06-01 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 14, 2021 (86 FR 50451, September 9, 2021).
(i) Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI) AD ISR-I-57-2020-06-01, dated January 27, 2021.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) For CAAI AD ISR-I-57-2020-06-01, contact CAAI, P.O. Box 1101, Golan Street, Airport City, 70100, Israel; telephone 972-3-9774665; fax 972-3-9774592; email
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt & Whitney PW1500G and PW1900G series turbofan engines with a certain high-pressure turbine (HPT) 1st-stage hub or HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate installed. This AD was prompted by a report from the manufacturer who determined that the HPT 1st-stage hub and HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate fail to meet the published life-cycle limits for each part. This AD requires removal and replacement of the HPT 1st-stage hub and HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate prior to reaching certain cycle limits. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 27, 2021.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: (800) 565-
You may examine the AD docket at
Mark Taylor, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7229; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Pratt & Whitney PW1500G and PW1900G series turbofan engines with a certain HPT 1st-stage hub or HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate installed. The NPRM published in the
The FAA received comments from two commenters. The commenters were Delta Air Lines, Inc. (DAL) and the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
DAL requested that the FAA change paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD from removing the affected part and replacing with a part eligible for installation “at the next engine shop visit after accumulating 4,700 CSN. . .” to “at the next engine shop visit after accumulating 4,960 CSN. . .” to mirror the 4,960 CSN listed earlier in the paragraph. DAL suggested that “4,700 CSN” is a typographical error.
The FAA disagrees that “4,700 CSN” is a typographical error. It is the cyclic value at which point certain HPT parts are to be removed from service. In contrast, “4,960 CSN on the effective date of this AD” is a calculated point at which HPT-part removal requirements transition from the requirements of paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD to the requirements of paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this AD. “4,960 CSN” and “4,700 CSN” are different in their function and how they are calculated. The FAA did not change this AD.
ALPA expressed support for the NPRM as written.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
The FAA reviewed Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin (SB) PW1000G-A-72-00-0115-00B-930A-D, Issue No. 001, dated April 26, 2021, and Pratt & Whitney SB PW1000G-A-72-00-0168-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 001, dated April 26, 2021. These SBs describe procedures for removing and replacing the HPT 1st-stage hub and HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 88 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that in most cases the affected HPT 1st-stage hub and the affected HPT 1st-stage blade retaining plate will both be replaced during the same disassembly of the engine. This cost estimate therefore reflects the cost of replacing both parts during the same engine disassembly.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
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
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 27, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521G-3, PW1521GA, PW1524G, PW1524G-3, PW1525G, PW1525G-3, PW1919G, PW1921G, PW1922G, PW1923G, and PW1923G-A model turbofan engines with a high-pressure turbine (HPT) 1st-stage hub, part number (P/N) 30G5701, or an HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate, P/N 30G1692, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by a report from the manufacturer who determined that the HPT 1st-stage hub and HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate fail to meet the published life-cycle limits for each part. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT 1st-stage hub or HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the release of the HPT 1st-stage hub or HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate, damage to the engine, and damage to the aircraft.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521G-3, PW1521GA, PW1524G, and PW1524G-3 model turbofan engines:
(i) For an affected HPT 1st-stage hub and an affected HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate with 3,000 cycles since new (CSN) or fewer on the effective date of this AD, before the affected part exceeds 4,700 CSN, remove the affected part, as applicable, and replace with a part eligible for installation.
(ii) For an affected HPT 1st-stage hub and an affected HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate with greater than 3,000 CSN but fewer than 4,960 CSN on the effective date of the AD, at the next engine shop visit after accumulating 4,700 CSN or before the affected part exceeds 5,260 CSN, whichever occurs first, remove the affected part, as applicable, and replace with a part eligible for installation.
(iii) For an affected HPT 1st-stage hub and an affected HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate with 4,960 CSN or greater on the effective date of the AD, at the next engine shop visit or within 300 cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, remove the affected part, as applicable, and replace with a part eligible for installation.
(2) For PW1919G and PW1921G model turbofan engines:
(i) For an affected HPT 1st-stage hub and an affected HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate with 3,000 CSN or fewer on the effective date of this AD, before the affected part exceeds 4,700 CSN, remove the affected part, as applicable, and replace with a part eligible for installation.
(ii) For an affected HPT 1st-stage hub and an affected HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate with greater than 3,000 CSN but fewer than 4,700 CSN on the effective date of the AD, at the next engine shop visit after the affected part accumulates 4,700 CSN or before the affected part exceeds 5,000 CSN, whichever occurs first, remove the affected part, as applicable, and replace with a part eligible for installation.
(iii) For an affected HPT 1st-stage hub and an affected HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate with 4,700 CSN or greater on the effective date of the AD, at the next engine shop visit or within 300 cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, remove the affected part, as applicable, and replace with a part eligible for installation.
(3) For PW1525G and PW1525G-3 model turbofan engines:
(i) Before the affected HPT 1st-stage hub and affected HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate exceeds 2,800 CSN, respectively, or within 300 cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, remove the affected part, as applicable, and replace with a part eligible for installation.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) For PW1922G, PW1923G, and PW1923G-A model turbofan engines:
(i) Before the affected HPT 1st-stage hub and affected HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate exceeds 3,000 CSN, respectively, or within 300 cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, remove the affected part, as applicable, and replace with a part eligible for installation.
(ii) [Reserved]
(1) For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine case flanges, except for the following, which do not constitute an engine shop visit:
(i) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation without subsequent maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
(ii) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of replacing the fan without subsequent maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
(2) For the purpose of this AD, a “part eligible for installation” is:
(i) For PW1519G, PW1521G, PW1521G-3, PW1521GA, PW1524G, PW1524G-3, PW1919G, and PW1921G model turbofan engines:
(A) Any HPT 1st-stage hub with P/N 30G5701 with 4,700 CSN or fewer, or with a P/N not listed in this AD.
(B) Any HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate with P/N 30G1692 with 4,700 CSN or fewer, or with a P/N not listed in this AD.
(ii) For PW1525G and PW1525G-3 model turbofan engines:
(A) Any HPT 1st-stage hub with P/N 30G5701 with 2,800 CSN or fewer, or with a P/N not listed in this AD.
(B) Any HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate with P/N 30G1692 with 2,800 CSN or fewer, or with a P/N not listed in this AD.
(iii) For PW1922G, PW1923G, and PW1923G-A model turbofan engines:
(A) Any HPT 1st-stage hub with P/N 30G5701 with 3,000 CSN or fewer, or with a P/N not listed in this AD.
(B) Any HPT rotor 1st-stage blade retaining plate with P/N 30G1692 with 3,000 CSN or fewer, or with a P/N not listed in this AD.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. You may email your request to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
For more information about this AD, contact Mark Taylor, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7229; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class E airspace at Sundance Airport, Oklahoma City, OK. This action is the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Sundance Localizer (LOC).
Effective 0901 UTC, December 2, 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 JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sundance Airport, Oklahoma City, OK, to support instrument flight rule operations at these airports.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile (decreased from a 6.8-mile) radius of Sundance Airport, Oklahoma City, OK.
This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Sundance LOC which provided guidance to instrument procedures at this airport.
FAA Order JO 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 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 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.1-mile radius of Will Rogers World Airport, and within an 8.2-mile radius of Tinker AFB, and within a 6.7-mile radius of University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport, and within 2.0 miles each side of the 213° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.8 miles southwest of the airport, and within a 6.3-mile radius of David Jay Perry Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Clarence E. Page Municipal Airport, and within a 6.6-mile radius of El Reno Regional Airport, and within a 6.8-mile radius of Wiley Post Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Sundance Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mesa Del Rey Airport, King City, CA. The establishment of Class E airspace supports the airport's transition from visual flight rules (VFR) to instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 2, 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 JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, 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 establishes Class E airspace at Mesa Del Rey Airport, King City, CA, to ensure the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mesa Del Rey Airport, King City, CA. This airspace is designed to contain IFR departure to 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the surface. The establishment of Class E airspace supports the airport's transition from VFR to IFR operations.
FAA Order JO 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
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.7-mile radius of the airport, and within 4.1 miles each side of the 126° bearing from the airport extending from the airport to 12.8 miles southeast of the airport, and within 3.7 miles each side of the 332° bearing from the airport extending from the 3.7-mile radius to 9.3 miles northwest of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends two jet routes, and removes four jet routes, in the eastern United States. This action is in support of the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route Project to improve the efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) and reduce dependency on ground-based navigational systems.
Effective date 0901 UTC, December 2, 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 JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2021-0294 in the
Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet routes listed in this document will be subsequently amended in, or removed, respectively, from the Order.
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The NPRM proposed to amend jet route J-55 by removing the segments between Sea Isle, NJ, and Presque Isle, ME. Design and coordination of the proposed amendment is incomplete so the J-55 amendment is removed from this final rule. The change will be deferred to a later date. J-55 will remain as currently depicted on aeronautical charts.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending two jet routes and removing four jet routes in the eastern United States. This action supports the Northeast Corridor Atlantic Coast Route Project by amending and removing certain jet route segments that are being replaced by Area Navigation (RNAV) routing. Additionally, the jet route changes will reduce aeronautical chart clutter by removing unneeded route segments.
The jet route changes are as follows:
FAA Order JO 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 proposed rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of amending two jet routes, removing four jet routes, in the eastern United States qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Delicias, Mexico, via Fort Stockton, TX; Abilene, TX; Ranger, TX; Texarkana, AR; excluding the portion in Mexico.
From Hopewell, VA; to Wilmington, NC
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies the Class E airspace, designated as a surface area, at Lake Tahoe Airport, South Lake Tahoe, CA. This action removes the
Effective 0901 UTC, December 2, 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 JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, 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 modifies and removes Class E airspace at Lake Tahoe Airport, South Lake Tahoe, CA, to ensure the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The comment discussed changes to Class D airspace at Lake Tahoe Airport. The comment is not germane to this action, because Lake Tahoe Airport does not have a Class D airspace area.
Class E2, E4, and Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace, designated as a surface area, at Lake Tahoe Airport, South Lake Tahoe, CA. To properly contain IFR aircraft in the terminal environment, the radius of this airspace area should be increased from 4.3 miles to 5 miles.
This action also removes the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area. This airspace is no longer needed to contain IFR aircraft descending below 1,000 feet above the surface.
This action also modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. This airspace is designed to contain IFR departure to 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the surface. To properly contain aircraft conducting the LDA RWY 18 approach, the extension north of the airport is increased from 9.8 miles to 17.5 miles.
This action also implements two administrative updates to the Class E2's text header. On the second line of the text header, the airport name should be updated to “Lake Tahoe Airport”, to match the FAA database. On the third line of the text header, the airport's geographic coordinates should be updated to “lat. 38°53′38″ N, long. 119°59′44″ W”, to match the FAA database.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile radius of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Lake Tahoe Airport and within 1.9 miles each side of the 008° bearing from the airport extending from the 6-mile radius to 17.5 miles north of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E surface airspace for East Hampton Airport, East Hampton, NY, to assist aircraft landing and departing the airport when the air traffic control tower is closed. In addition, this action amends Class D airspace by replacing the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the airport description and amends the radius and ceiling as the FAA deemed the airspace adjustments were necessary. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 2, 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 JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; Telephone (404) 305-6364.
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 establishes Class E airspace and amends Class D airspace for East Hampton Airport, East Hampton, NY, to support IFR operations in the area.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000 and 6002, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E surface airspace for East Hampton Airport, East Hampton, NY, providing the controlled airspace required to support aircraft landing and departing in IFR conditions at this airport. In addition, this action amends Class D airspace by decreasing the radius to 4.2 miles (from 4.8) and the ceiling to 2,000 feet MSL (from 2,500), and replacing the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the airport description. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
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 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 minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures an 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 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface up to and including 2,000 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of East Hampton Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during 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.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-mile radius of East Hampton Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during 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.
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Notification of continuation of temporary travel restrictions.
This document announces the decision of the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to continue to temporarily limit the travel of individuals from Canada into the United States at land ports of entry along the United States-Canada border. Such travel will be limited to “essential travel,” as further defined in this document.
These restrictions go into effect at 12 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on September 22, 2021 and will remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 21, 2021, unless amended or rescinded prior to that time.
Stephanie Watson, Office of Field Operations Coronavirus Coordination Cell, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at 202-325-0840.
On March 24, 2020, DHS published notice of its decision to temporarily limit the travel of individuals from Canada into the United States at land ports of entry along the United States-Canada border to “essential travel,” as further defined in that document.
DHS continues to monitor and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of the week of September 5, 2021, there have been over 220 million confirmed cases globally, with over 4.5 million confirmed deaths.
DHS also notes that the Delta variant continues to drive an increase in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.
Given the outbreak and continued transmission and spread of COVID-19 within the United States and globally, the Secretary has determined that the risk of continued transmission and spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 between the United States and Canada poses an ongoing “specific threat to human life or national interests.”
In March 2020, U.S. and Canadian officials mutually determined that non-essential travel between the United States and Canada posed additional risk of transmission and spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 and placed the populace of both nations at increased risk of contracting the virus associated with COVID-19. Given the sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus, coupled with risks posed by new variants, non-essential travel to the United States places the personnel staffing land ports of entry between the United States and Canada, as well as the individuals traveling through these ports of entry, at increased risk of exposure to the virus associated with COVID-19. Accordingly, and consistent with the authority granted in 19 U.S.C. 1318(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2),
For purposes of the temporary alteration in certain designated ports of entry operations authorized under 19 U.S.C. 1318(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2), travel through the land ports of entry and ferry terminals along the United States-Canada border shall be limited to “essential travel,” which includes, but is not limited to—
• U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents returning to the United States;
• Individuals traveling for medical purposes (
• Individuals traveling to attend educational institutions;
• Individuals traveling to work in the United States (
• Individuals traveling for emergency response and public health purposes (
• Individuals engaged in lawful cross-border trade (
• Individuals engaged in official government travel or diplomatic travel;
• Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and the spouses and children of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, returning to the United States; and
• Individuals engaged in military-related travel or operations.
The following travel does not fall within the definition of “essential travel” for purposes of this Notification—
• Individuals traveling for tourism purposes (
At this time, this Notification does not apply to air, freight rail, or sea travel between the United States and Canada, but does apply to passenger rail, passenger ferry travel, and pleasure boat travel between the United States and Canada. These restrictions are temporary in nature and shall remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 21, 2021. This Notification may be amended or rescinded prior to that time, based on circumstances associated with the specific threat. In coordination with public health and medical experts, DHS continues working closely with its partners across the United States and internationally to determine how to safely and sustainably resume normal travel.
The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is hereby directed to prepare and distribute appropriate guidance to CBP personnel on the continued implementation of the temporary measures set forth in this Notification. The CBP Commissioner may determine that other forms of travel, such as travel in furtherance of economic stability or social order, constitute “essential travel” under this Notification. Further, the CBP Commissioner may, on an individualized basis and for humanitarian reasons or for other purposes in the national interest, permit the processing of travelers to the United States not engaged in “essential travel.”
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Notification of continuation of temporary travel restrictions.
This document announces the decision of the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to continue to temporarily limit the travel of individuals from Mexico into the United States at land ports of entry along the United States-Mexico border. Such travel will be limited to “essential travel,” as further defined in this document.
These restrictions go into effect at 12 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on September 22, 2021 and will remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 21, 2021, unless amended or rescinded prior to that time.
Stephanie Watson, Office of Field Operations Coronavirus Coordination Cell, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at 202-325-0840.
On March 24, 2020, DHS published notice of its decision to temporarily limit the travel of individuals from Mexico into the United States at land ports of entry along the United States-Mexico border to “essential travel,” as further defined in that document.
DHS continues to monitor and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of the week of September 5, 2021, there have been over 220 million confirmed cases globally, with over 4.5 million confirmed deaths.
DHS also notes that the Delta variant continues to drive an increase in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.
Given the outbreak and continued transmission and spread of COVID-19 within the United States and globally, the Secretary has determined that the risk of continued transmission and spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 between the United States and Mexico poses an ongoing “specific threat to human life or national interests.”
In March 2020, U.S. and Mexican officials mutually determined that non-essential travel between the United States and Mexico posed additional risk of transmission and spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 and placed the populace of both nations at increased risk of contracting the virus associated with COVID-19. Given the sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus, coupled with risks posed by new variants, non-essential travel to the United States places the personnel staffing land ports of entry between the United States and Mexico, as well as the individuals traveling through these ports of entry, at increased risk of exposure to the virus associated with COVID-19. Accordingly, and consistent with the authority granted in 19 U.S.C. 1318(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2),
For purposes of the temporary alteration in certain designated ports of entry operations authorized under 19 U.S.C. 1318(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2), travel through the land ports of entry and ferry terminals along the United States-Mexico border shall be limited to “essential travel,” which includes, but is not limited to—
• U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents returning to the United States;
• Individuals traveling for medical purposes (
• Individuals traveling to attend educational institutions;
• Individuals traveling to work in the United States (
• Individuals traveling for emergency response and public health purposes (
• Individuals engaged in lawful cross-border trade (
• Individuals engaged in official government travel or diplomatic travel;
• Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and the spouses and children of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, returning to the United States; and
• Individuals engaged in military-related travel or operations.
The following travel does not fall within the definition of “essential travel” for purposes of this Notification—
• Individuals traveling for tourism purposes (
At this time, this Notification does not apply to air, freight rail, or sea travel between the United States and Mexico, but does apply to passenger rail, passenger ferry travel, and pleasure boat travel between the United States and Mexico. These restrictions are temporary in nature and shall remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 21, 2021. This Notification may be amended or rescinded prior to that time, based on circumstances associated with the specific threat. In coordination with public health and medical experts, DHS continues working closely with its partners across the United States and internationally to determine how to safely and sustainably resume normal travel.
The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is hereby directed to prepare and distribute appropriate guidance to CBP personnel on the continued implementation of the temporary measures set forth in this Notification. The CBP Commissioner may determine that other forms of travel, such as travel in furtherance of economic stability or social order, constitute “essential travel” under this Notification. Further, the CBP Commissioner may, on an individualized basis and for humanitarian reasons or for other purposes in the national interest, permit the processing of travelers to the United States not engaged in “essential travel.”
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations under section 301 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). These regulations update existing regulations under section 301 to reflect statutory changes made by the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, which changes provide that the amount of a distribution of property made by a corporation to its shareholder is the fair market value of the distributed property. The regulations affect shareholders that receive a distribution of property from a corporation.
Grid R. Glyer, (202) 317-6847 (not a toll-free number).
This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section 301 of the Code relating to the treatment of distributions of property from a corporation to a shareholder. Section 301 provides rules for the treatment of a distribution of property, including money, made by a corporation to its shareholder with respect to that shareholder's stock ownership in that corporation (distribution).
Section 1006(e)(10) and (e)(11) of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Public Law 100-647, 102 Stat. 3342 (1988) (Act), amended section 301(b)(1) and (d), respectively (such amendments, the 1988 Amendments). Section 1019(a) of the Act provided that, in general, the 1988 Amendments were effective as if included in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (1986). Accordingly, the 1988 Amendments generally are effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986.
As a result of the 1988 Amendments, section 301(b)(1) provides that, for purposes of section 301, the amount of any distribution is the amount of money received plus the fair market value of the other property received. Section 301(d) provides that the basis of property received in a distribution to which section 301(a) applies is the fair market value of such property.
The current regulations issued under section 301 reflect the rules of sections 301(b)(1) and 301(d) as they existed prior to the 1988 Amendments. Accordingly, to the extent preempted by statute, the current regulations have no application.
A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-121694-16) published in the
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS received no comments on the 2019 proposed regulations, and no public hearing was requested or held. This document adopts the 2019 proposed regulations as final regulations with no substantive changes and with certain non-substantive changes for purposes of clarity and readability.
The final regulations apply to distributions made after September 22, 2021. However, these regulations update the previous regulations under section 301 to reflect statutory changes made by the 1988 Amendments, which apply to distributions made in taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986.
This regulation is not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that these final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of section 601(6) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that no additional burden will be associated with these final regulations. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Accordingly, the Secretary's delegate certifies that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 7805(f), the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. No comments were received from the Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
The principal author of these regulations is Grid R. Glyer of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). Other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in developing these regulations.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(2)
(3)
(ii)
(g)
(h)
(i) [Reserved]
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(ii)
(2)
(3)
(ii)
(4)
(ii)
(n)
(f) See § 1.301-1(j) for certain transactions that are not within the scope of section 356.
(m) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) * * * See § 1.301-1(j).
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Interim final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is revising its regulations that govern VA's Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) by extending eligibility for legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers and the applicable benefits afforded to Family Caregivers, to include the
Comments must be submitted through
Colleen Richardson, PsyD, Executive Director, Caregiver Support Program, Patient Care Services, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-7337. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In 2010, Congress established section 1720G of title 38 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Public Law (Pub. L.) 111-163, 124 Stat. 1130 (2010). Section 1720G required VA, in part, to establish a Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) for Family Caregivers of eligible veterans who have a serious injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service on or after September 11, 2001. VA implemented PCAFC through its regulations in part 71 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). PCAFC provides certain benefits such as training, respite care, counseling, technical support, beneficiary travel (to attend required caregiver training and for an eligible veteran's medical appointments), access to health care (if qualified) through the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA), and a monthly stipend. 38 U.S.C. 1720G; 38 CFR 71.40.
In 2018, section 161 of the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 (VA MISSION Act of 2018), Public Law 115-182, 132 Stat. 1393 (2018), amended 38 U.S.C. 1720G by expanding PCAFC to Family Caregivers of eligible veterans who incurred or aggravated a serious injury in the line of duty before September 11, 2001 in a phased approach, establishing new benefits for designated Primary Family Caregivers of eligible veterans, and making other changes affecting program eligibility and VA's evaluation of PCAFC applications. To incorporate these and other necessary changes to improve and expand VA's PCAFC, VA amended 38 CFR part 71. 85
VA recognized that there were individuals whose applications had already been received by VA and were in the process of being evaluated under the pre-October 1, 2020 criteria and who would be approved for PCAFC on or after October 1, 2020, as well as individuals who were already participating in PCAFC before October 1, 2020.
In § 71.30, VA set forth requirements for reassessment to determine whether legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers would continue to be eligible for PCAFC. Paragraph (e)(1) states that if the eligible veteran is a legacy participant or a legacy applicant, that eligible veteran and their Family Caregiver(s) will be reassessed by VA during the one-year period beginning on October 1, 2020 to determine whether the legacy participant or legacy applicant meets the new eligibility requirements in § 71.20(a). VA acknowledged that it would need to reassess legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers to determine their continued eligibility for PCAFC, and believed one year from the effective date of the final rule would be necessary and appropriate to ensure these reassessments were completed. 85 FR at 46253.
VA foresaw possible impacts of the new regulation on the legacy cohort. For instance, there was the possibility that a legacy applicant or legacy participant would no longer be eligible for PCAFC under the criteria in § 71.20(a). In addition, there was the possibility that the legacy applicant or legacy participant would be determined eligible for PCAFC, but the Primary Family Caregiver would be eligible for a stipend amount that was less than they were receiving under the previous regulations. Because of these potential impacts, VA allowed for an extension of eligibility under the pre-October 1, 2020 criteria for a one-year transition period under § 71.20(b) and (c) for legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers. During this transition period, legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers would continue to be eligible to receive benefits under PCAFC and would not have the amount of their monthly stipend reduced (except as the result of the eligible veteran moving to a new address).
In § 71.40(c)(4), VA set forth requirements for determining monthly stipend amounts for Primary Family Caregivers. This paragraph explains how the stipend is calculated for Primary Family Caregivers of legacy participants and legacy applicants during the one-year transition period.
As explained in the proposed rule, VA believed that a one-year transition period was reasonable. It would allow individuals who are participating in PCAFC as of September 30, 2020, the day before the effective date of the rule, to remain eligible for the program and not experience a stipend amount decrease (except as specified) while VA completes a reassessment to determine eligibility under the new criteria—regardless of when such reassessment occurred during the one-year period. This was important because it would be inequitable for similarly situated veterans and their Family Caregivers to be disadvantaged based solely on when VA conducted their reassessment. In addition, this one-year period would minimize disruption to these individuals by allowing for a period to plan and adjust to the possibility of a legacy applicant or legacy participant being determined no longer eligible or eligible such that the monthly stipend would be a lesser amount. We believed this to be fair, reasonable, and an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. 85 FR 13356 (March 6, 2020); 85 FR 46226 (July 31, 2020).
For the reasons explained below, we are extending the one-year transition period and timeline for VA to complete reassessments of legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family
When the prior rulemaking became effective on October 1, 2020, VA intended to complete reassessments for all legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers within a one-year period to determine their eligibility under new § 71.20(a); however, this is no longer achievable. For the reasons explained below, VA is unable to conduct all necessary reassessments of legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers within the one-year period. It is therefore necessary to extend PCAFC eligibility of legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers under §§ 71.20(b) and (c) and their applicable benefits, including the monthly stipend calculation under § 71.40(c)(4), for an additional one-year period through September 30, 2022.
The VA MISSION Act of 2018 expanded eligibility for PCAFC to Family Caregivers of eligible veterans who incurred or aggravated a serious injury in the line of duty before September 11, 2001 in a phased approach. The first phase, which became effective on October 1, 2020, expanded PCAFC eligibility to include eligible veterans who incurred or aggravated a serious injury in the line of duty on or before May 7, 1975. Since the onset of this first phase of expansion, VA has seen a dramatic increase in new applications for PCAFC. This increase is significantly higher than VA anticipated.
We acknowledge that anticipating the number of applications that may be received is subject to significant variability and subjectivity. An individual need not be eligible to apply for PCAFC; there is no restriction on who may choose to apply. However, VA estimated that it would receive 76,635 applications in FY 2021, and as of July 1, 2021, VA has received approximately 90,500 applications. The number of applications received so far exceeds the total number of applications PCAFC received in any previous year and exceeds VA's projections for the entire FY 2021. For reference, in FY 2020, VA received approximately 22,900 applications, with an average of 1,900 applications per month. Between October 1, 2020 and July 1, 2021, VA has received an average of approximately 10,000 applications per month.. We note that, of the approximately 90,500 applications VA received between October 1, 2020 and July 1, 2021, approximately 11 percent of these veteran applicants were born in 1983 or later, demonstrating that new applicants are not only from those veterans who have been waiting for expansion to begin, but also from veterans who may have incurred or aggravated a serious injury in the line of duty on or after September 11, 2001, and are newly interested in the Program.
As part of planning for PCAFC expansion, a staffing model was developed to guide and inform staffing decisions to augment resources available to administer, monitor, and oversee PCAFC. In particular, this action was necessary to prepare for the anticipated increased workload associated with expanding PCAFC, to include application processing, completion of wellness contacts, completion of reassessments, and supporting delivery of clinical care. The first phase of the staffing augmentation called for an additional 680 field based and Veteran Integrated Service Network (VISN) level staff to support administration and delivery of caregiver support programming. The second phase of staffing augmentation began in August 2020 and sought to add over 750 additional field-based front-line staff. As of July 2021, over 90 percent of staff had been hired.
Despite these staffing augmentations, given the significantly larger volume of applications than was anticipated, VA focused its resources on processing new applications versus reassessing eligibility of legacy applicants, legacy participants and their Family Caregivers. As a result, as of July 1, 2021, VA has only completed 4 percent of the estimated 19,800 reassessment needed for the legacy cohort. VA will be unable to complete reassessments of each legacy applicant, legacy participant, and their Family Caregiver(s) within the one-year period provided in § 71.30(e).
While VA received higher than anticipated applications, it is important to note that educating and training new staff as well as educating and training existing staff on the program changes has continued, culminating in more streamlined processes, implementation of best practices, and increased efficiencies. As a result of these efforts, VA has significantly increased the rate in which applications are being adjudicated. During the first quarter of FY 2021, VA adjudicated an average of 4,075 applications per month. In comparison, during the third quarter of FY 2021, VA adjudicated an average of 10,663 applications per month—an increase of 162 percent in adjudications made. While VA's rate of application adjudication has been increasing, there has been a corresponding decrease in the number of new PCAFC applications being received. The average number of applications received each month in the third quarter of FY 2021 was approximately 7,300 compared to an average of approximately 11,600 each month during the first quarter—a decrease of approximately 59 percent in the average number of new applications received each month (during third quarter compared to first quarter). As noted above, VA's rate of adjudicating applications has increased with the passage of time during FY 2021. With the rate of new application submissions decreasing and adjudications of such new applications increasing, VA has been able to devote more resources to reassessments of legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers. With these continued efforts, VA believes that reassessments of legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers will be able to be completed with the extension of an additional one-year period.
Extending the eligibility period of legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers from a one-year period to a two-year period from October 1, 2020 will ensure that all legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers have the same transition period and the same effective date for any termination or reduction in benefits, regardless of when VA conducts the reassessment during the two-year period. Without this extension, legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers who are reassessed and found to be no longer eligible for PCAFC under § 71.20(a) or who have their stipend reduced under § 71.40(c)(4) would be impacted at different times, resulting in unequal treatment in the provision of PCAFC benefits. As noted above, VA has already begun conducting some reassessments. If those individuals were determined through a reassessment completed before October 1, 2021, to be no longer eligible for PCAFC or to be eligible but the Primary
When VA established the initial one-year transition period for legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers, it was intended to provide a reasonable amount of time for VA to conduct reassessments, minimize disruption to those individuals, and provide a fair and reasonable time for transition. 85 FR at 46253. VA intended that all legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers would have the same transition period, regardless of when the reassessment is completed during the one-year transition period.
For the reasons explained above, VA amends its regulations codified in § 71.20 regarding program eligibility, § 71.30 regarding reassessments, and § 71.40 regarding caregiver benefits, to extend the transition period for legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers from one year to two years (that is, until October 1, 2022) and to extend the time period for reassessments of such individuals from one year to two years (that is, until October 1, 2022).
VA amends § 71.20 by removing the words “one year” in §§ 71.20(b) and (c), and adding, in their place, the words “two years”.
VA amends § 71.30 by removing the words “one-year” in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) and adding, in their place, the words “two-year”.
VA also amends § 71.40 by removing the words “one year” in paragraphs (c)(4)(i)(B) through (D) and adding, in their place, the words “two years”. VA similarly amends paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(C)(
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds that there is good cause under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment and publish this rule, as notice and comment would be contrary to public interest. VA is issuing this rule to extend the time to complete reassessments for legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers for an additional year, through September 30, 2022, and to similarly extend the transition period. As discussed earlier, VA will not be able to complete the required reassessments of this legacy cohort by October 1, 2021.
Absent regulatory action, effective October 1, 2021 the reassessment period of legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers sunsets. This would leave legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers in a state of uncertainty about their status and eligibility for benefits moving forward. Extending the reassessment period in advance of October 1, 2021 will provide clarity to the legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers about the duration of their current benefits and about next steps. Additionally, if the date to complete the reassessments and the period of transition is not extended, legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers who are reassessed and found to be no longer eligible for PCAFC, or eligible but with a reduced stipend amount, would be impacted at different times. Some legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers would experience negative impacts before others within this same cohort based on when they are reassessed. The varying impact would result from no reason other than that VA was able to reassess certain individuals earlier than others. Therefore, VA must amend its regulations to provide a one-year extension for the reassessment period and for VA to conduct the reassessments.
Notwithstanding the effective date of this rulemaking, VA invites public comments on this interim final rule and will fully consider and address any comments received. Generally, VA would seek notice and comment in advance of a rule becoming effective. However, in this circumstance, VA does not have sufficient time to provide the public with the opportunity for prior notice and comment and have the amendments effective by October 1, 2021. As noted earlier in the preamble, the number of applications received has far exceeded expectations, and by focusing its resources on processing new applications (while also implementing new regulations and processes for evaluating PCAFC eligibility), VA was unable to prioritize the reassessment of legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers. In October 2020, VA received an estimated 18,400 applications with a decline in applications received in November and December 2020. However, during the second quarter of FY 2021, VA received another surge in applications, which further delayed VA's ability to prioritize the reassessment of legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers. To manage these competing issues, VA explored options to complete the reassessments while continuing to process applications. During this exploration, however, VA determined that, even with processing applications while conducting legacy reassessments, an additional 12-month period would be required to complete the legacy reassessments, which is the basis for this interim final rule.
For the reasons stated above, the Secretary also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this interim final rule effective on the date of its publication in the
VA recognizes that this extension will continue for an additional year the existing disparity between PCAFC participants who applied for the program on or after October 1, 2020 (and were approved for PCAFC based on the existing regulatory criteria), and legacy participants, legacy applicants, and their Family Caregivers (who were approved for PCAFC based on pre-October 1, 2020 regulatory requirements). However, any harm associated with continuing the current inequity between these two cohorts for an additional one-year period, does not outweigh the harm associated with the alternative outcomes that would result in the absence of this regulatory action. In contrast to PCAFC participants who
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at
The Secretary hereby certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This interim final rule extends the time for VA to conduct legacy reassessments and the transition period for legacy applicants, legacy participants, and their Family Caregivers. This rule has no impact on small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This interim final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This interim final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Administrative practice and procedure, Caregivers program, Claims, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Mental health programs, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 30, 2021, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 71 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, 1720G, unless otherwise noted.
Section 71.40 also issued under 38 U.S.C. 111(e), 1720B, 1782.
Section 71.47 also issued under 31 U.S.C. 3711; 38 U.S.C. 5302, 5314.
Section 71.50 also issued under 38 U.S.C. 1782.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule and environmental assessment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to update the design to reflect changes provided by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and to extend the duration of the AP1000 design certification for an additional 5 years. The NRC invites public comment on this proposed rule and environmental assessment.
Submit comments by October 22, 2021. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Daniel Doyle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-3748, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0269 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Because the NRC anticipates that this action will be non-controversial, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
A significant adverse comment is a comment in which the commenter explains why the rule (including the environmental assessment) would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if it meets the following criteria:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule.
For additional information, including procedural information, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
The NRC is amending the design certification (DC) for the AP1000 standard plant design to extend the duration of the DC for 5 years, as proposed by the NRC staff in SECY-20-0082, “Rulemaking Plan to Extend the Duration of the AP1000 Design Certification,” dated September 8, 2020 (“rulemaking plan”), and approved by the Commission in SRM-SECY-20-0082, dated November 17, 2020. To issue this extension, the NRC must conclude that the standard design continues to meet the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the AEA), and the Commission's regulations. This action would allow an applicant to reference the AP1000 design certification while the Commission considers potential changes to the duration and renewal of future and currently valid design certifications more broadly in a separate, ongoing rulemaking (Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing NRC-2009-0196; RIN 3150-AI66). The NRC also is updating the DC to reflect changes provided by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse), by letter dated March 19, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21081A023).
The purpose of the amendment is to extend by 5 years the period that the AP1000 DC is valid for referencing by an applicant and to include design changes previously approved by the NRC in multiple combined license proceedings. The extended duration would align with the extended renewal period previously granted by the NRC to Westinghouse for the AP1000 DC in its exemption issued by letter dated February 14, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17265A099). With this proposed duration extension, the AP1000 DC would remain valid for referencing until February 27, 2026.
The AP1000 DC in appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” to part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” of title 10 of the
In the rulemaking plan, the NRC staff acknowledged that there were known design issues that it would need to assess in the rulemaking to determine their impact on the necessary safety and environmental findings. The following five aspects of the design were discovered to have issues after the NRC updated the design certification rule to incorporate Revision 19 of the AP1000 design control document (DCD) (ADAMS Accession No. ML11171A500) on December 30, 2011: (1) Passive core cooling system containment condensate return, (2) main control room dose, (3) main control room heatup, (4) hydrogen vent inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC), and (5) neutron flux logic operating bypass. Combined license holders and applicants have previously referenced and resolved these five design issues, and the NRC has approved the same changes to address the issues in multiple combined license applications and amendments.
After the NRC staff began assessing the known design issues for the rulemaking, Westinghouse indicated its preference to update the design to reflect the changes made in the previous applications referencing the AP1000 design. By letter dated March 19, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21081A023), Westinghouse submitted applicable AP1000 DCD markups and references that illustrate how: (1) The five issues have been corrected based on construction of the current AP1000 reactors for Southern Nuclear Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, and (2) Westinghouse has marked up the referenced DCD in accordance with those changes. The NRC staff used these references to verify the Westinghouse submitted DCD markups are the same as the design changes the NRC has previously reviewed and approved to address the design issues.
The NRC staff verified, as documented in the NRC staff's Verification Evaluation Report, that the corrected information provided in the markups is the same as has been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC for various combined license and license amendment applications. In reviewing those applications, the NRC staff determined that the design changes resolved the identified design issues, met the applicable regulations, and that the design as modified met the applicable requirements of the AEA and the NRC's regulations. Neither the applicable provisions of the AEA nor the NRC's regulations have changed since those applications were approved. Therefore, the NRC concludes that the relevant safety findings reached in the NRC staff reviews of those prior applications apply to the AP1000 design changes incorporated by the direct final rule and that the standard design, as modified by those changes, meets the applicable standards of the AEA and the NRC's regulations.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
The NRC has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the
This proposed rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Design certifications are not generic rulemakings establishing a generally applicable standard with which all 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 nuclear power plant licensees must comply. Design certifications are Commission approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking. Furthermore, design certifications are initiated by an applicant for rulemaking, rather than by the NRC. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Combined license, Early site permit, Emergency planning,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Fulton Airport, Fulton, KY, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving this airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
Comments must be received on or before November 8, 2021.
Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2021-0801, Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-29, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order JO 7400.11F Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would establish Class E airspace in Fulton, KY, to support IFR operations in the area.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2021-0801 and Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-29) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0801; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-29.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Fulton Airport, Fulton, KY, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures”, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.3-mile radius of Fulton Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Skaneateles Aerodrome, Skaneateles, NY, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving this airport, as well as updating the airport's name. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
Comments must be received on or before November 8, 2021.
Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2021-0747; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-14 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order JO 7400.11F Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would amend airspace in Skaneateles, NY, to support IFR operations in the area.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0747; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-14.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition, in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Skaneateles Aerodrome, Skaneateles, NY, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport. This action would increase the radius to 8.0 miles (previously 6.5 miles), and update the airport name to Skaneateles Aerodrome, (formerly Skaneateles Aerodrome Airport).
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures”, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.0-mile radius of Skaneateles Aerodrome.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notices of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before October 22, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit
Marietta Echeverria, Registration Division (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing receipt of pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), summaries of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioners, are included in dockets EPA has created for these rulemakings. The dockets for these petitions are available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) proposes to modernize outdated requirements and clarify existing requirements associated with the filing of marine terminal operator (MTO) schedules.
Submit comments on or before November 22, 2021.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Commission is also seeking comment on revisions to an information collection. See the Paperwork Reduction Act section under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices below. Please submit all comments relating to the revised information collection requirements to the FMC and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the address listed below under
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 21-06, by emailing
Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary; Phone: (202) 523-5725; Email:
Regulations for the publication of terminal schedules by MTOs are set forth in 46 CFR part 525. Information made available under this part may be used to determine MTOs' compliance with shipping statutes and regulations.
Rules regarding MTO schedules are outlined in 46 CFR part 525. The regulations are limited to the optional publication of MTO schedules. Pursuant to part 525, a marine terminal operator, at its discretion, may make available to the public, subject to section 10(d) of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 41102(c), 41103, 41106), a schedule of its rates, regulations, and practices. Part 525 also discusses the rules with respect to making terminal schedules available to the public. These regulations were scheduled to be reviewed in Fiscal Year 2020. The Commission proposes several changes to these regulations that are neither substantial nor policy related. Some provisions reference old names of a current Commission bureau or outdated technology used to gain access to MTO schedules. Other provisions have been clarified as deemed necessary or revised to be consistent with other parts of the Commission's regulations.
As discussed above, the proposed changes are non-policy related and the intent is limited to modernizing outdated requirements, clarifying existing requirements and definitions, and making the existing requirements and definitions consistent with other parts of the Commission's regulations.
In addition, the proposed rule revises the definition of “marine terminal operator” to mean “a person engaged in the United States in the business of providing wharfage, dock, warehouse, or other terminal facilities in connection with a common carrier[.]” This language is consistent with the statutory definition of an MTO.
The proposed rule amends the definition of “terminal facilities” by adding “docks, berths, piers, [and] aprons” to the list of structures comprising a terminal unit. In addition, the proposed language replaces the term “water carriers” with “ocean common carriers.”
The proposed rule also introduces a definition for the “United States” that is consistent with the definition found in 46 U.S.C. 114. To accommodate the new paragraph, the proposed rule renumbers paragraphs 525.1(c)(21) to (23) to be paragraphs 525.1(c)(22) to (24). Additionally, the proposed rule revises the definition of an MTO to delete “or a commonwealth, territory, or possession thereof,” because those entities are now included in the definition of “United States.”
With the deletion of specific paragraphs as discussed above, the proposed rule renumbers the remaining paragraphs. With respect to current paragraph 525.3(f), the proposed rule replaces references to the “Bureau of Tariffs, Certification and Licensing,” which no longer exists, with the “Bureau of Trade Analysis” (BTA). In addition, the proposed rule also replaces “name and telephone number of firm's representative” with simply “contact information for its representative.” The proposed rule also clarifies that BTA has authority to accept submitted Form FMC-1 filings and revisions, and that the filings are pending until accepted.
With respect to current paragraph 525.3(g), the proposed rule clarifies that an MTO may make available to the public its schedules and that any such schedule made available to the public is enforceable by an appropriate court as an implied contract without proof of actual knowledge of its provisions. This language is consistent with 46 U.S.C. 40501(f).
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
You may submit your comments via email to the email address listed above under
The Commission will provide confidential treatment for identified confidential information to the extent
• A transmittal letter requesting confidential treatment that identifies the specific information in the comments for which protection is sought and demonstrates that the information is a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.
• A confidential copy of your comments, consisting of the complete filing with a cover page marked “Confidential-Restricted,” and the confidential material clearly marked on each page.
• A public version of your comments with the confidential information excluded. The public version must state “Public Version—confidential materials excluded” on the cover page and on each affected page, and must clearly indicate any information withheld.
The Commission will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by the Commission at the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at the addresses listed above under
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612) provides that whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the agency must prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603, 605. Based on the analysis below, the Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulated business entities that would be impacted by the rule are marine terminal operators. The Commission has determined that marine terminal operators generally do not qualify as small entities under the guidelines of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, as well as the impacts of alternatives to the proposed action. When a Federal agency prepares an environmental assessment, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) require it to “include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives [. . .], of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.” 40 CFR 1508.9(b). This section serves as the Commission's Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for the proposed changes to 46 CFR part 525.
This document sets forth the purpose of and need for this action. The purpose of this rulemaking is to modernize outdated requirements and clarify existing requirements associated with the filing of MTO schedules. The recommended changes are non-policy related and the intent is limited to modernizing outdated requirements and clarifying existing requirements and definitions to make them consistent with other parts of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has reviewed the information presented in this Draft EA and concludes that the proposed action and alternatives it may consider would have nothing more than de minimis impacts on the quality of the human environment. Based on the information in this Draft EA and assuming no additional information or changed circumstances, the Commission expects to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Such a finding will be made only after careful review of all public comments received. A Final EA and a FONSI, if appropriate, will be issued as part of the final rule.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (PRA) requires an agency to seek and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. 44 U.S.C. 3507. The agency must submit collections of information in proposed rules to OMB in conjunction with the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR 1320.11.
The information collection requirements associated with the marine terminal operator schedules requirements in part 525 are currently authorized under OMB Control Number 3072-0061. The proposed rule does not make any changes to the option for MTOs to file MTO schedules with the Commission.
In compliance with the PRA, the Commission has submitted the proposed revised information collection to the Office of Management and Budget and is requesting comment on the proposed revision.
Comments are invited on:
• Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Whether the Commission's estimate for the burden of the information collection is accurate;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please submit any comments, identified by the docket number in the heading of this document, by the methods described in the
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards in E.O. 12988 titled, “Civil Justice Reform,” to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 requires agencies to make every reasonable effort to ensure that each new regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly 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. This document is consistent with that requirement.
The Commission assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda, available at
Marine Terminal Operator Schedules.
For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Maritime Commission is proposing to amend 46 CFR part 525 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 40102, 40501, 41101-41106.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a)
(c) * * *
(1)
(2)
(7)
(8)
(13)
(18)
(21)
(b)
(c)
(2) Marine terminal operators shall ensure that their internet service providers shall provide static internet addresses.
(d)
(e)
By the Commission.
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 October 22, 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 potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This is a request to make a substantive change to the currently approved Census of Agriculture clearance. In this substantive change, NASS provides details to the separate data collection of agricultural decision makers' sexual orientation and gender identification (SOGI) and disability status data that was mentioned in the original approval. This experimental data collection will be called
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of availability; request for comment.
NRCS is giving notice that it is proposing to revise Section 1 of the Field Office Technical Guides in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Caribbean Area, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii and Pacific Islands Area, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The proposed changes include hydrology indicators for the identification in each of these States of farmed wetlands (FW) that are not playas, pocosins, or potholes. These indicators will be used by NRCS to identify FWs while completing wetland determinations for USDA program eligibility purposes.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. You may submit comments through the:
•
•
All comments will be available on
Each State's proposed hydrology indicators for the identification of FWs that are not playas, pocosins, or potholes are available through
The appropriate NRCS State Conservationist as listed below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
To participate in most USDA programs, agricultural producers agree to comply with the wetland conservation provisions. This means producers will not farm converted wetlands or convert wetlands to enable agricultural production. One of NRCS' roles is to make wetland determinations that locate and certify the existence of wetlands subject to the Food Security Act of 1985 on producers' land.
This notice announces that NRCS plans to revise Section 1 of the Field Office Technical Guide for the following States: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Caribbean Area, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii/Pacific Islands Area, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Section 1 of each State's Field Office Technical Guide may be used by NRCS to identify FWs while completing wetland determinations for USDA program eligibility purposes in that particular State. Specifically, the proposed changes will include hydrology indicators to identify FWs that are not playas, pocosins, or potholes.
Each State's proposed hydrology indicators for the identification of FWs that are not playas, pocosins, or potholes are available through
NRCS plans to revise Section 1 of the Field Office Technical Guides for the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Caribbean Area, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii/Pacific Islands Area, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
The controlling regulations for the wetland conservation (WC) provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, are provided in 7 CFR part 12, “Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation.” The regulations' broad definition of “wetland determination” describe an FW (in part) using two criteria. First, an FW is a wetland that prior to December 23, 1985, was manipulated and used to produce an agricultural commodity at least once before December 23, 1985. Second, FWs are described as wetlands that on December 23, 1985, did not support woody vegetation, and met the following hydrologic criteria: If not a playa, pocosin, or pothole, experienced inundation for 15 consecutive days or more during the growing season or 10 percent of the growing season, whichever is less, in most years (50-percent chance or more).
To decide effectively whether an area supports the required inundation for a FW that is not identified as a playa, pocosin, or pothole, the regulations then provide three options:
1. Observation of wetland hydrology indicators as identified in the local NRCS Field Office Technical Guide;
2. Procedures identified in State Off-Site Methods for wetland identification set forth in the local NRCS Field Office Technical Guide; or
3. The use of analytic techniques, such as the use of drainage equations or the evaluation of monitoring data.
The proposed FW hydrology indicators provide those NRCS will use under option one.
On August 28, 2020, USDA published a final rule in the
The preamble to the August 28, 2020, final rule provided that until such time as the updates to the NRCS Field Office Technical Guides have been published and public notice provided, NRCS will continue to use Group B (Evidence of Recent Inundation) hydrology indicators from the regional supplements to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, as specified in the interim rule, published December 7, 2018, in the
Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 3862 note) specifies that USDA must allow public notice and comment for revisions to NRCS State technical guides which are used to carry out the Food Security Act of 1985 highly erodible land and wetland conservation provisions (16 U.S.C. 3801-3824).
NRCS will consider all comments that are received during the 30-day comment period. The final version of the Field Office Technical Guide for the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Caribbean Area, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii/Pacific Islands Area, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming as revised to include hydrology indicators for the identification of FWs that are not playas, pocosins, or potholes will be adopted after the close of the 30-day period and after consideration of all comments. Responses to comments will be posted at
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
Specifically, the RDP provides states the opportunity to delineate voting districts and to suggest census block boundaries for use in the 2020 Census redistricting data tabulations (Pub. L. 94-171 Redistricting Data File). In addition, the RDP periodically collects state legislative and congressional district boundaries if they are changed by the states. After the 2020 Census, states may use 2020 data tabulated for census blocks, voting districts, and possibly other geographic areas such as cities, counties, etc., as considerations when they draw their new congressional and legislative district boundaries. States are the only authority that can choose where and how to draw their boundaries. The boundaries collected in the RDP and other geographic programs will create census blocks, which are the building blocks for all Census Bureau geographic boundaries. While the geographic programs differ in requirements, time frame, and participants, the RDP and the other geographic programs all follow the same basic process:
1. The Census Bureau invites eligible participants to the program. For the RDP, the Census Bureau invites non-partisan state liaisons appointed by the legislative majority and minority leadership of each state.
2. If they elect to participate in the program, participants receive a digital copy of the boundaries the Census Bureau has on file. Participants review the boundaries and update them if needed. RDP participants can choose to review and provide their boundary updates using a free customized mapping software, or their own mapping software.
3. Participants return their updates to the Census Bureau.
4. The Census Bureau updates their geographic database with boundary updates from participants.
5. The Census Bureau uses the newly updated boundaries and addresses to tabulate statistics.
The Census Bureau is requesting a clearance to continue the RDP. As the current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0607-0988 will expire in November 2021, the new clearance will allow the Census Bureau to provide RDP-specific materials, burden hours, and procedures to the 52 state liaisons to complete Phase 4: Collection of Post 2020 Census Redistricting Data Plans and Phase 5: Review of the 2020 Census RDP and Recommendations for the 2030 RDP. The RDP is executed under the provisions of Title 13, Section 141(c) of the United States Code (U.S.C.).
Under the provisions of Public Law 94-171, as amended (Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 141(c)), the Secretary of Commerce, who designates this responsibility to the Director of the Census Bureau, is required to provide the officers or public bodies having initial responsibility for the legislative apportionment or districting of each state with the opportunity to specify geographic areas (
The Census Bureau issued invitation letters by mail (U.S. Postal Service) and follow-up emails to the officers or public bodies having initial responsibility for legislative reapportionment and redistricting. The 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico designated non-partisan liaisons to serve as the primary point of contact with the Census Bureau on the 2020 Census RDP.
Phase 1: Block Boundary Suggestion Project was conducted and completed in fiscal years 2015 through 2017.
Phase 2: The Voting District Project was conducted and completed in fiscal years 2018 through 2020.
Phase 3: Delivery of the 2020 Decennial Census Redistricting Data was originally scheduled for completion on April 1, 2021. Due to COVID-19-related delays and prioritizing the delivery of the apportionment results, the Census Bureau completed delivery of the redistricting data to all states and state equivalents on August 12, 2021 and again in more usable format on September 16, 2021.
Phase 4: Collection of Post Census Redistricting Data Plans. Between January 2022 and July 2022, the Census Bureau will solicit from each state the newly drawn 118th Congressional Districts and State Legislative Districts. This effort will occur every two years in advance of the 2030 Census to update these boundaries with new or changed plans. A verification phase will occur with each update.
Phase 5: Review of the 2020 Census RDP and Recommendations for the 2030 Census RDP (2020 post-data collection). As the final phase of the 2020 Census RDP, the Census Bureau will work with the states to conduct a thorough review of the RDP. The intent of this review, and the final report that results, is to provide guidance to the Secretary and the Census Bureau Director in planning the 2030 Census RDP.
No changes have been made since the RDP 60-day notification was published on Friday, May 07, 2021, Vol. 86, No. 87, pages 24582-24584.
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
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of request for public comments.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) seeks to support U.S. private-sector businesses and organizations engaged in export
Comments will be considered on a rolling basis but are due no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 8, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by ITA-2021-0004, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Due to COVID-19 building closures, we are temporarily not accepting comments by mail. However, if you are unable to comment via
Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period may not be considered by ITA. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. Commenters should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. ITA will not accept anonymous comments.
For those seeking to submit confidential business information (CBI) for Government use only, please clearly mark such submissions as CBI and submit an accompanying redacted version to be made public. CBI comments can be submitted either through
Karen Grunstra, International Trade Administration, at
(1) Current global market conditions in regard to healthcare services;
(2) Related needs for healthcare services exports that affect success in international markets;
(3) The effectiveness of the assistance ITA already offers and ideas for activities not currently offered.
1. With respect to healthcare services and healthcare services technology outside of the United States:
a. Which markets present the greatest potential for growth in healthcare services exports, and what services or enabling technologies are most in demand in these markets?
b. Which countries offer the most competition in the sector, and in which services or enabling technologies?
c. What trade barriers exist, and what regulatory, standards, or other market condition changes would be most significant in facilitating U.S. healthcare services exports?
d. How are healthcare services sold in international markets,
1. When examining which international export markets to enter, please explain the importance of the following:
a. How do local licensing requirements and/or other certifications affect the ability to operate in various international markets?
b. How important is the education/training of international personnel to success in exporting healthcare services and why?
c. When entering a market, how do exporters find local representatives and employees (
1. To what extent would the following ITA activities assist exporters of healthcare services:
a. How would ITA's collaboration directly with foreign governments to improve market preconditions and address market-specific challenges be useful?
b. How would ITA's implementation of U.S. export promotion activities, including those already offered such as trade missions or match-making activities, be useful?
c. What activities not currently offered would be helpful to U.S. exporters?
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
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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of approved monitoring service providers.
NMFS has approved an additional company to provide Northeast multispecies sector electronic monitoring services in fishing years 2021 and 2022. Regulations implementing the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan require at-sea and electronic monitoring companies to apply to, and be approved by, NMFS in order to be eligible to provide monitoring services to sectors. This action will allow sectors to contract for at-sea and electronic monitoring services with any of the approved service providers for fishing years 2021 and 2022.
The list of NMFS-approved sector monitoring service providers is available at:
Claire Fitz-Gerald, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9255, email
The Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan includes a requirement for industry-funded monitoring of catch by sector vessels. Sectors must contract with independent third-party service providers to provide at-sea and/or electronic monitoring services to their vessels. In order to provide at-sea or electronic monitoring services to sectors, monitoring companies must apply to, and be approved by, NMFS. The regulations at 50 CFR 648.87(b)(4) describe the criteria for approval of at-sea and electronic monitoring service providers. We approve service providers based on: (1) Completeness and sufficiency of applications; and (2) determination of the applicant's ability to meet the performance requirements of a sector monitoring service provider. Once approved, service providers must meet
On February 4, 2021, NMFS approved 6 companies to provide monitoring services to the Northeast multispecies sectors in fishing years 2021 and 2022. Four of the six companies are approved to provide both at-sea and electronic monitoring services: A.I.S., Inc.; East West Technical Services, LLC; Fathom Research, LLC; and Saltwater, Inc. NMFS approved the other two companies to provide electronic monitoring services: Flywire Cameras and Teem Fish.
Two additional companies also applied to provide electronic monitoring services, but we required additional information to complete their applications prior to making a determination. One company, New England Marine Monitoring, has since submitted a revised and complete application for our consideration. We approved New England Marine Monitoring to provide electronic monitoring services in fishing years 2021 and 2022 because the applicant has met the application requirements and documented its ability to comply with service provider standards. The revised list of approved monitoring providers for fishing years 2021 and 2022 is provided in Table 1.
There will be an opportunity in the fall of 2021 for additional monitoring companies to apply for approval to provide at-sea and electronic monitoring services in fishing year 2022. We will closely monitor the performance of approved providers, and we will withdraw approval during the current approval term, or disapprove a provider in future fishing years, if we determine performance standards are not being met.
(Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of issuance of Letter of Authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA Regulations for Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko) for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
The LOA is effective from September 18, 2021 through March 17, 2022.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Kim Corcoran, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in Federal waters of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322; January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective on April 19, 2021.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
Anadarko plans to conduct a zero offset vertical seismic profile (VSP) survey after reaching total depth at Lease Block 129 in the Mississippi Canyon. (See map in Section F of Anadarko's application.) Anadarko plans to use one of four possible airgun arrays for this survey: A 12-element array, with a total volume of 2,400 cubic inches (in
Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the survey effort proposed by Anadarko in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in the preamble (86 FR 5322, 5398; January 19, 2021). In order to generate the appropriate take number for authorization, the following information was considered: (1) Survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone
No VSP surveys were included in the modeled survey types, and use of existing proxies (
For some species, take estimates based solely on the modeling yielded results that are not realistically likely to occur when considered in light of other relevant information available during the rulemaking process regarding marine mammal occurrence in the GOM. Thus, although the modeling conducted for the rule is a natural starting point for estimating take, our rule acknowledged that other information could be considered (see,
Killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM, typically in deep waters of the central GOM (Roberts
As discussed in the final rule, the density models produced by Roberts
NOAA surveys in the GOM from 1992-2009 reported only 16 sightings of killer whales, with an additional three encounters during more recent survey effort from 2017-18 (Waring
The rarity of encounter during seismic surveys is not likely to be the product of high bias on the probability of detection. Unlike certain cryptic species with high detection bias, such as
In summary, killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM and typically occur only in particularly deep water. While this information is reflected through the density model informing the acoustic exposure modeling results, there is relatively high uncertainty associated with the model for this species, and the acoustic exposure modeling applies mean distribution data over areas where the species is in fact less likely to occur. NMFS' determination in reflection of the data discussed above, which informed the final rule, is that use of the generic acoustic exposure modeling results for killer whales will generally result in estimated take numbers that are inconsistent with the assumptions made in the rule regarding expected killer whale take (86 FR 5322, 5403; January 19, 2021). In this case, use of the acoustic exposure modeling produces an estimate of three killer whale exposures. Given the foregoing, it is unlikely that even one killer whale would be encountered during this 5-day survey, and accordingly no take of killer whales is authorized through this LOA.
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See Table 1 in this notice and Table 9 of the final rule (86 FR 5322; January 19, 2021).
Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small. For more information please see NMFS' discussion of the MMPA's small numbers requirement provided in the final rule (86 FR 5322, 5438; January 19, 2021).
The take numbers for authorization, which are determined as described above, are used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations, through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5322, 5391; January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock abundance reports (SAR;
Based on the analysis contained herein of Anadarko's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to Anadarko authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Seminar Series presentation.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will host a presentation on Tuna Management Strategy Evaluation via webinar October 12, 2021.
The webinar presentation will be held on Tuesday, October 12, 2021, from 1 p.m. until 2:30 p.m.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8439 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The Council will host a presentation from National Marine Fisheries Service on Tuna Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE). The Council is considering using MSEs in future management and this will provide a background on how MSEs have been used in other fisheries. A question and answer session will follow the presentation. Members of the public will have the opportunity to participate in the discussion. The presentation is for informational purposes only and no management actions will be taken.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) is holding a meeting, which is open to the public.
The online meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 12, 2021, beginning at 1 p.m. (Pacific Daylight
This meeting will be held online. Specific meeting information, including directions on how to join the meeting and system requirements will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Kit Dahl, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422.
The purpose of the meeting is for the HMSMT to discuss the contents of reports it would submit to the Pacific Council on topics included on the November 2021 Pacific Council meeting and future Pacific Council meetings. Potential topics include, but are not limited to, a range of alternatives for hard caps for the California large mesh driftnet fishery and updates to the Pacific Council's Swordfish Management and Monitoring Plan. The HMSMT may also discuss other HMS-related topics not currently scheduled on Pacific Council meeting agendas. A detailed agenda for this meeting, including topics and estimated times, will be posted to the Pacific Council website in advance of the meeting.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Ad Hoc Southern Oregon Northern California Coast (SONCC) Coho Workgroup (Workgroup) will host an online meeting that is open to the public.
The online meeting will be held Wednesday and Thursday, October 13-14, 2021, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, or until business for the day has been completed.
This meeting will be held online. Specific meeting information, including directions on how to join the meeting and system requirements will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Ms. Robin Ehlke, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2410.
The purpose of the meeting will be to incorporate Pacific Council guidance from its September 2021 meeting in relevant modeling and analyses needed to update the current risk assessment and harvest control rule alternatives for consideration at the November 2021 Pacific Council meeting. The Workgroup may also discuss and prepare for future Workgroup meetings and future meetings with the Pacific Council and its advisory bodies.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (
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 NOFO will indicate the specific questions to which an applicant must respond in one of three ways: (1) The applicable questions are inserted directly into the NOFO with reference to the OMB Approval Number (0648-0538) for this form; (2) the NOFO will specify which questions (
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
National Oceanic and 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 a request for extension of a currently approved information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed extension of an information collection must be received on or before November 22, 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 Lisa Manning, National Marine Fisheries Service at 301-427-8466 or
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Office of Protected Resources, is sponsoring a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), determinations whether to list species as endangered or threatened must be based on the best scientific and commercial data available, including consideration of those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation (or any of their political subdivisions) to protect the particular species. On March 28, 2003, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Services”) announced a final policy on the criteria the Services will use to evaluate certain conservation efforts by states, tribes, and other non-federal entities when making listing determinations under the ESA (68 FR 15100). The conservation efforts usually involve the development of a conservation plan or agreement, procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of the plan or agreement, and an annual report.
The development of conservation plans could prevent some species from becoming so imperiled that the only recourse is to add them to the list of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. The purpose of this policy is to encourage such plans and to give applicants guidance about how NMFSs will evaluate such plans. This policy identifies criteria for evaluating the certainty of implementation and effectiveness of a conservation effort. NMFS developed this policy to ensure consistent and adequate evaluation of agreements and plans in making listing decisions and to help States and other entities develop agreements and plans that will be adequate to make listing species unnecessary.
NMFS does not require, but does accept, conservation plans and reports electronically. NMFS has not developed a form to be used for submission of plans or reports. In the past, NMFS has made plans and annual reports from states available through the internet and plans to continue this practice.
We are soliciting public comments to permit NMFS 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 information collection request. 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 an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during restoration activity associated with the Elkhorn Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project, Phase III, in Monterey Bay, California.
This authorization is effective from September 16, 2021 through September 15, 2022.
Kim Corcoran, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the original application and supporting documents (including NMFS FR notices of the prior authorizations), as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
On June 14, 2021, NMFS received a request from CDFW for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to the Elkhorn Slough Restoration Project, Phase III, at the Seal Bend Restoration Area in Monterey Country, CA. The application was deemed adequate and complete on July 27, 2021. CDFW's request is for take of a small number of Pacific harbor seals (
NMFS previously issued an IHA to CDFW for Phase I (82 FR 16800; April 6, 2017) and Phase II (85 FR 14640; March 13, 2020) of the Elkhorn Slough Restoration Project. Restoration work under the 2020 IHA at the Minhoto-Hester and Seal Bend restoration areas was expected to be completed within 180 days within the 1-year timeframe of the IHA. However, on May 3, 2021 CDFW informed NMFS that the estimated 180 days of construction for both the Minhoto-Hester and Seal Bend Restoration Areas would not be enough to complete the project. This preliminary estimate did not adequately
As work at the Seal Bend Restoration Area had not begun and could not be covered by the 2021 Renewal, CDFW requested that a new IHA be issued that would be valid for one year from the date of issuance. Under this new IHA, CDFW would conduct 240 days of work to restore 28.6 acres (11.57 hectares) of tidal marsh habitat in the Seal Bend Restoration Area. The project would include the use of haul trucks and heavy earthmoving equipment to transport dry material out onto the marsh. The project activities will not differ from the 2020 IHA other than the number of construction days, and the means of calculating take.
The Elkhorn Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project (project) plans to restore approximately 122 acres (49.37) of tidal marsh across three phases, all of which are located in Monterey County, California. This IHA covers take incidental to Phase III of the project, which will restore 28.6 acres (11.57 hectares) at the Seal Bend Restoration Area. Similar to previous project phases, Phase III will relocate soil from an upland area called “the borrow” through use of heavy earth moving equipment, within a 12-month period. Construction activities are expected to produce airborne noise and visual disturbance that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of Pacific harbor seals (
A detailed description of the planned restoration project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to CDFW was published in the
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities is found in the 2020 IHA, which remains applicable to the proposed 2021-2022 IHA as well. In addition, NMFS has reviewed recent 2020 Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and recent scientific literature, and determined that no new information affects our original analysis of impacts under this IHA. Please refer to the previous
A description of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat may be found in the documents supporting the 2020 IHA, which remains applicable to the issuance of the 2021-2022 IHA. The effects of CDFW's activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project area. The notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 43204; August 6, 2021) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic activity on marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is incorporated by reference into this final IHA determination and is not repeated here; please refer to the notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 43204; August 6, 2021).
A detailed description of the previous methods and inputs used to estimate authorized take is found in the 2020 IHA. The total number of construction days and the method of estimating take have been modified from the 2020 IHA to reflect construction delays as discussed above and the monitoring data received under the 2020 IHA. The source levels and marine mammal occurrence and density remain unchanged from the 2020 IHA and detailed information regarding these figures can be found in the proposed and issued 2020 IHA.
To repeat how take was calculated in the 2020 IHA, we used the total number of seals taken during Phase I construction (
For the Phase III project, we have additional monitoring data that more accurately reflects the amount of take that occurs during this type of restoration activity. In particular we now have data that suggests the maximum number of seals taken per day within 300 m of construction activity has been 8, which occurred on September 8, 2020 (Table 1). Therefore, we propose to use that maximum number of seals taken per day to estimate take using the following formula:
The average total individual takes per day for Phase II was 1.33 which is considerably lower than the maximum number of seals taken per day (8) (Table 1). Therefore we believe this approach is adequately precautionary and reflects likely expected take. Using this approach, a summary of estimated takes of harbor seals incidental to the project activities are provided in Table 2.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Some of the mitigation measures are identical to those included in the FR Notice announcing the final 2020 IHA and detailed descriptions of these requirements can be found in that document. However, a few requirements have been updated to reflect NMFS more recent construction requirements and those changes are discussed in
Visual Monitoring—CDFW must fulfill monitoring requirements as described below. Required monitoring must be conducted by dedicated, trained, NMFS-approved Protected Species Observer(s) (PSO(s)). CDFW must monitor the project area to the maximum extent possible based on the required number of PSOs, required monitoring locations, and environmental conditions.
• Level B Harassment Zone—PSOs shall establish a Level B harassment zone within 300 m of all construction activities.
• When construction activities occur either, (1) in water or; (2) within the boundaries of the Seal Bend Restoration Area (Phase III) identified in Figure 2, monitoring must occur every other day when work is occurring.
• When construction activities occur near the “borrow” area where marsh fill material is gathered, monitoring must occur every fifth day when work is occurring within 300 m from seal haulouts or, if outside this area, when work is occurring less than 200 m from the water. Occurrence of marine mammals within the Level B harassment zone must be communicated to the construction lead to prepare for the potential shutdown when required.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness. Changes from the 2020 IHA include:
• 5(g)(v)(10): Notes should include any of the following information to the extent it is feasible to record:
○ Age-class;
○ Sex;
○ Unusual activity or signs of stress;
○ Activity of seals observed within hour timeframe (
○ Any other information worth noting; and
• 6(a): The Holder must submit its draft report(s) on all monitoring conducted under this IHA within 90 calendar days of the completion of monitoring or 60 calendar days prior to the requested issuance of any subsequent IHA for construction activity at the same location, whichever comes first. A final report must be prepared and submitted within 30 calendar days following receipt of any NMFS comments on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of the draft report, the report shall be considered final.
The rest of monitoring and reporting measures are identical to those included in the FR Notice announcing the final 2020 IHA and detailed descriptions of these requirements can be found in that document.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Construction activities associated with this project have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. No serious injury or mortality is expected, and with mitigation we expect to avoid any potential for Level A Harassment as a result of the Seal Bend construction activities for Phase III. The specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from visual disturbance and/or noise from construction activities. The project area is within a portion of the local, year round, habitat for harbor seals of the greater Elkhorn Slough. Behavioral disturbance associated with these activities are expected to affect only a small amount of the total population, although those effects could be recurring over the life of the project if the same individuals remain in the project vicinity. Harbor seals may avoid the area or halt any behaviors (
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B Harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from previous phases and other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as displacement from the area or disturbance during resting. The construction activities analyzed here, such as equipment used, construction approach, and turbidity management, are the same as those activities previously analyzed under the 2017 and 2020 IHAs. Both Phase I and Phase II of the project reported no injuries or mortality to marine mammals as a result of the construction activities, and no known long-term adverse consequences from behavioral harassment have been documented. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of noise or visual disturbance at these levels, though they may cause Level B Harassment, are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or significant disruption of foraging behaviors. Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (
Pacific harbor seals, as the only potentially affected marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction in the action area, are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and NMFS SARs for this stock has shown to be increasing in population size and is considered stable (Caretta
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• No Level A Harassment is anticipated or authorized;
• Anticipated incidents of Level B Harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior;
• Primary foraging and reproductive habitat are outside of the project area and not expected to result in the alteration of habitat important to these behaviors or substantially impact the behaviors themselves. There is alternative haulout habitat just outside the footprint of the construction area, along the main channel of Elkhorn Slough, and in Parson's Slough, often the preferred pupping grounds in recent years (per comm Jim Harvey 2019), that will be available for seals while some of the haulouts are inaccessible;
• Restoration of the marsh habitat will have no adverse effect on marine mammal habitat, but possibly a long-term beneficial effect;
• Presumed efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact; and
• These stocks are not listed under the ESA or considered depleted under the MMPA.
In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from previous phases of the project and other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities will have only short-term effects on a relatively small portion of the entire California stock. The specified activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
For the Phase III of the Elkhorn Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration Project, the authorized take (if we conservatively assume that each take occurred to a new animal, which is unlikely) comprises approximately 6.2 percent of the abundance of Pacific harbor seals in the California Stock. Therefore, based on the analysis herein of the activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stock.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stock or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
The current action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review just as previous phases of the project did.
We have reviewed all comments submitted in response to the proposed IHA notice to conclude our NEPA process and make a final decision on the IHA request.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16. U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is for authorization or expected to result from this activity in the Elkhorn Slough Reserve. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to CDFW for the potential harassment of small numbers of harbor seals incidental to conducting restoration activities at the Seal Bend Restoration Area in Elkhorn Slough (Monterey County, CA), provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, revised 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 November 22, 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 Nicole Kurkowski, R2O Team Lead, DOC/NOAA/NWS/OSTI, 1325 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 301.427.9104,
A notice of request for a new information collection was previously published in the
In alignment with the Weather Forecasting and Innovation Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-25), two data collections are proposed under this request. There are no other collections for which these can be merged.
The first proposed information collection request is sponsored by DOC/NOAA/National Weather Service (NWS)/Office of Science and Technology Integration (OSTI). Currently, NOAA lacks data and data collection instruments that articulate and explicate how individuals receive, interpret, and respond to NOAA information, forecasts, and warnings for severe, winter, and tropical weather hazards. Furthermore, NOAA lacks this type of data longitudinally (
This information would be collected at the Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies (CIMMS) and the University of Oklahoma's Center for Risk and Crisis Management (CRCM), who has developed data collection instruments that would allow for more routine and longitudinal data collection, as the data will be collected on an annual basis. Furthermore, this team has developed interactive “dashboards”, or tools, to visualize the aggregated data.
Respondents include adults (age 18+) who reside in the United States, recruited by survey companies that maintain large panels of people who sign up to complete internet surveys, such as Qualtrics and Survey Sampling International. Respondents will be asked questions about the ways they have received, interpreted, and responded to NWS information, forecasts, and warnings for severe, tropical, and winter weather hazards. Questions about preparedness for specific hazards such as heat waves, tornadoes, and drought may also be included. This data collection serves many purposes, including gaining a better understanding of how key factors within a given population, or organization, vary over time, location, and across different groups; the ability to detect gradual trends or abrupt changes in those factors over time or in response to particular events; and the potential to explore possible correlations and causal relationships with other observed variables of interest. These data will be used by the OSTI in NWS to develop a baseline and performance metrics to improve the information and services it provides and to help members of the weather enterprise answer basic questions about the people in the communities they serve, which is a necessary step towards customizing and improving risk communication, education, and decision support to meet the characteristics of the community, including those in vulnerable populations. The information collected will help identify differences and best practices between communities and assist NWS in developing new education and risk communication strategies. The survey data and its associated dashboard will serve as interactive tools to allow NWS forecasters, partners, and policymakers to access and explore data for training and performance evaluation purposes.
The second proposed collection is sponsored through NOAA's FY2021 Weather Program Office's Social Science Program, and addresses the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBES) component of meeting NOAA's Research and Development (R&D) Vision Areas (2020-2026) to integrate SBES into products, tools, and services that improve weather and air quality forecasting and societal outcomes.
This proposal aims to create an online survey system for collecting data on the publics' perception and response to four different hazards: Tornados, thunderstorm winds over 70 miles per hour (mph), flash floods, and winter weather. The online surveys will be the building blocks for a multi-year, cross-sectional database on human perception and response. The survey system will enable individual National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs) to disseminate Quick Response Surveys (QRS) soon after a hazardous event occurs to collect perishable data on the publics' perceptions and response. Select WFOs will distribute the QRSs using web links on NWS social media and core partners' social media or email lists. Surveys will ask the public questions on timing, location, weather information sources, motivations and influences for taking protective action to gain insights into how NWS warning communications interact with these factors to result in protective action behaviors.
For the first collection, the primary method of data collection will be a web-based survey interface. Specific questions in the surveys determine how members of the U.S. public receive, comprehend, and respond to severe, tropical, and winter weather related information. Furthermore, these survey items will be translated to Spanish.
The second collection will include online surveys to be implemented and aggregated using Qualtrics survey software. The surveys will be displayed on a desktop, tablet or mobile device allowing the public to take the survey whenever they have internet access. Select WFOs will distribute the QRSs using web links on NWS social media and core partners' social media or email lists.
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.
Notification of Annual Determination of fisheries.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is providing notification that the agency will not identify additional fisheries to observe on the 2022 Annual Determination (AD), pursuant to its authority under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Through the AD, NMFS identifies U.S. fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Ocean that will be required to take observers upon NMFS'
Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Jaclyn Taylor, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402; Ellen Keane, Greater Atlantic Region, 978-282-8476; Dennis Klemm, Southeast Region, 727-824-5312; Dan Lawson, West Coast Region, 206-526-4740; Irene Kelly, Pacific Islands Region, 808-725-5141. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the hearing impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
Under the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531
Bycatch in fishing gear is the primary anthropogenic source of sea turtle injury and mortality in U.S. waters. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take (defined to include harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting or attempting to engage in any such conduct), including incidental take, of endangered sea turtles. Pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA, NMFS has issued regulations extending the prohibition of take, with exceptions, to threatened sea turtles (50 CFR 223.205 and 223.206). Section 11 of the ESA provides for civil and criminal penalties for anyone who violates the ESA or a regulation issued to implement the ESA. NMFS may grant exceptions to the take prohibitions with an incidental take statement or an incidental take permit issued pursuant to ESA section 7 or 10, respectively. To do so, NMFS must determine that the activity that will result in incidental take is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the affected listed species. For some Federal fisheries and most state fisheries, NMFS has not granted an exception for incidental takes of sea turtles primarily because we lack information about fishery-sea turtle interactions.
For most fisheries, the most effective way for NMFS to learn more about bycatch in order to implement the take prohibitions and prevent or minimize take is to place observers aboard fishing vessels. In 2007, NMFS issued a regulation (50 CFR 222.402) establishing procedures to annually identify, pursuant to specified criteria and after notice and opportunity for comment, those fisheries in which the agency intends to place observers (72 FR 43176; August 3, 2007). These regulations specify that NMFS may place observers on U.S. fishing vessels, commercial or recreational, operating in U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. exclusive economic zone, or on the high seas, or on vessels that are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Failure to comply with the requirements under this regulation may result in civil or criminal penalties under the ESA.
NMFS will pay the direct costs for vessels to carry the required observers. These include observer salary and insurance costs. NMFS may also evaluate other potential direct costs, should they arise. Once selected, a fishery will be required to carry observers, if requested, for a period of five years without further action by NMFS. This will enable NMFS to develop appropriate observer coverage and sampling protocols to investigate whether, how, when, where, and under what conditions sea turtle bycatch is occurring and to evaluate whether existing measures are minimizing or preventing bycatch.
Pursuant to 50 CFR 222.402(a), NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, in consultation with Regional Administrators and Fisheries Science Center Directors, annually identifies fisheries for inclusion on the AD based on the extent to which:
(1) The fishery operates in the same waters and at the same time as sea turtles are present;
(2) The fishery operates at the same time or prior to elevated sea turtle strandings; or
(3) The fishery uses a gear or technique that is known or likely to result in incidental take of sea turtles based on documented or reported takes in the same or similar fisheries; and
(4) NMFS intends to monitor the fishery and anticipates that it will have the funds to do so.
NMFS is providing notification that the agency is not identifying additional fisheries to observe on the 2022 AD, pursuant to its authority under the ESA. NMFS is not identifying additional fisheries at this time given lack of dedicated resources to implement new observer programs or expand existing observer programs to focus on sea turtles. The two fisheries identified on the 2018 AD (see Table 1) will remain on the AD for a 5-year period and are required to carry observers upon NMFS' request until December 31, 2022. The four fisheries identified on the 2020 AD (see Table 1) will remain on the AD for a 5-year period and are required to carry observers upon NMFS' request until September 29, 2025.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) previously published a notice requesting comments on the implementation of certain administrative updates to the General Requirements Bulletin for Admission to the Examination for Registration to Practice in Patent Cases Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (GRB). The USPTO has considered the comments and, based on the support for the proposals, is implementing the updates to the GRB. There are three categories of technical and scientific qualifications that may typically make applicants eligible to sit for the registration examination: Category A for specified bachelor's degrees, Category B for other bachelor's degrees with technical and scientific training, and Category C for practical engineering or scientific experience, which may be demonstrated by passing the Fundamentals of Engineering test. Based on the USPTO's evaluation and comments received, the USPTO is changing the criteria to: Add common Category B degrees to Category A, accept advanced degrees (
The revised GRB incorporating the proposed updates will be published and applicable as of September 22, 2021.
Will Covey, Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline, by telephone at 571-272-4097 or by email at
On March 23, 2021, the Office published a request for comments on three proposals to change the criteria for sitting for the registration examination: (1) Adding common Category B degrees to Category A, (2) accepting advanced degrees (
This notice provides information relating to the implementation of the three proposals.
The Director of the USPTO is given statutory authority to require a showing by patent practitioners that they possess “the necessary qualifications to render applicants or other persons valuable service, advice, and assistance in the presentation or prosecution of their applications or other business before the Office.” 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(D). The courts have determined that the USPTO Director bears the primary responsibility for protecting the public from unqualified practitioners.
Pursuant to that responsibility, USPTO regulations provide that registration to practice in patent matters before the USPTO requires a practitioner to,
The GRB lists three categories of scientific and technical qualifications that typically make one eligible for admission to the registration examination: (1) Category A for specified bachelor's degrees, (2) Category B for other bachelor's degrees with technical and scientific training, and (3) Category C for individuals who rely on practical engineering or scientific experience by demonstrating that they have passed the Fundamentals of Engineering test. If a candidate for registration does not qualify under any of the categories listed in the GRB, the USPTO will conduct an independent review for compliance with the scientific and technical qualifications pursuant to 37 CFR 11.7(a)(2)(ii).
The USPTO has evaluated, and continues to evaluate, the list of typically qualifying training set forth in the GRB. These evaluations seek to clarify guidance on what will satisfy the scientific and technical qualifications and to identify possible areas of improved administrative efficiency. To that end, the USPTO published a notice requesting comments on three proposed updates to the GRB: (1) Adding common Category B degrees to Category A, (2) accepting advanced degrees (
The USPTO received 32 comments from intellectual property organizations, universities, industry, a law firm, individual patent practitioners, and the general public. The USPTO acknowledges and appreciates the many comments that were submitted from the intellectual property community. The comments are available at:
This notice merely describes agency policy and procedures and does not involve substantive rulemaking. While the criteria for admission to practice in patent matters is generally described in 37 CFR 11.7, the rule does not set forth the specific scientific and technical criteria for admission.
As explained further in the GRB, bachelor's degrees listed under Category A present prima facie evidence of the requisite technical and scientific qualifications. Prior to this notice, the bachelor's degree under Category A may only have been in one of the following subjects: Biology, biochemistry, botany, computer science, electronics technology, food technology, general chemistry, marine technology, microbiology, molecular biology, organic chemistry, pharmacology, physics, textile technology, aeronautical engineering, agricultural engineering, biomedical engineering, ceramic engineering, chemical engineering, civil engineering, computer engineering, electrical engineering, electrochemical engineering, engineering physics, general engineering, geological engineering, industrial engineering, mechanical engineering, metallurgical engineering, mining engineering, nuclear engineering, and petroleum engineering. These degree categories will remain listed under Category A.
Acceptable computer science degrees under Category A must be accredited by the Computer Science Accreditation Commission of the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board or by the Computing Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology on or before the date the degree was awarded. This requirement for computer science degrees under Category A remains unchanged by this notice. Based on the comments received, the USPTO will continue to evaluate this requirement in light of the type of computer science degrees (
Starting in early 2020, the USPTO undertook a review of Category B applications to identify bachelor's degrees that are routinely accepted as demonstrating the requisite scientific and technical qualifications. This review is ongoing. Based on the analysis to date and comments received, and understanding that Category A cannot be an exhaustive list of all degrees that would qualify, the Office is expanding the above list of Category A degrees to expressly include the following degrees that are routinely accepted under Category B: Aerospace engineering, bioengineering, biological science, biophysics, electronics engineering, genetic engineering, genetics, marine engineering, materials engineering, materials science, neuroscience, ocean engineering, and textile engineering. Listing these Category B degrees under Category A will improve operating efficiency and streamline the application process for prospective patent practitioners.
The USPTO also invited comments on any additional degrees that should be considered under Category A. Based on the comments received and a review of the applicants in the suggested degree categories over the past three calendar years (
The Office will continue to accept degrees where the transcript demonstrates equivalence to a Category A degree (For example, molecular cell biology may be equivalent to biology, and materials science and engineering may be equivalent to materials science.).
Prior to this notice, Category A did not include post-baccalaureate degrees. Based on a review of applicants and the comments received, the USPTO is updating the GRB to list possession of a master's or a doctor of philosophy degree in a Category A subject as demonstrating acceptable technical and scientific training. This includes the newly added Category A degrees listed above and degrees where the transcript demonstrates equivalence to a Category A degree.
Prior to this notice, Category B, Option 4 in the GRB required a combination of 40 credit hours in acceptable technical and scientific courses, including at least 8 hours in either chemistry with a lab or 8 hours in physics with a lab. Category B, Option 2, which focuses on training in biology and related sciences, had a similar requirement. The requirement for lab-based core science courses is meant to ensure familiarity with the processes involved in conducting valid experiments, the scientific method, and proper analysis of scientific data.
It is not clear whether multiple courses in either chemistry or physics alone, with a lab, provide an appreciable benefit over general core science training. Accordingly, the USPTO is revising Category B, Option 4 by changing “8 semester hours in chemistry or 8 semester hours of physics . . . obtained in two sequential courses, each containing a lab” to “eight semester hours in a combination of chemistry, physics, and/or biology, with at least one course including a lab.” Category B, Option 2, which already requires training in biology, is being revised to require at least “eight semester hours in a combination of chemistry and physics, with at least one course including a lab.”
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) conversion to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) pay and performance system.
In accordance with the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, the DON announces that the NNPP, a joint activity of the DON and the Department of Energy (DOE), NNPP will convert from the General Schedule (GS) Classification and Pay System and the DON Interim Performance Management System (IPMS) to the NNSA pay and performance System, also known as the NNSA Demonstration Project. This conversion will align DON employees of the NNPP with their counterparts in the DOE, NNSA, and bring parity to the pay and performance systems within the Nuclear Propulsion workforce.
This conversion will become effective September 22, 2022.
Mr. Edward Rose, 412-476-7204, or
When the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Headquarters converted to the DoD Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project (AcqDemo), Naval Reactors chose to opt out of AcqDemo in anticipation of aligning with the DOE, NNSA Demonstration Project. Section 3116(a)(3) of the Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA authorized NNPP to convert its DON employees to the NNSA System with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Navy. The Secretary of the Navy approved the transition of NNPP's DON civilian personnel to the NNSA Demonstration Project Personnel Management System on February 5, 2019. NNPP has been working with the NAVSEA Office of Civilian Human Resources to promulgate the conversion and plan the implementation through relevant DON and DoD offices. After providing data and supporting documentation, the DoD Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service has given approval to commence with the planning and implementation upon publishing of this notice. The implementation will require, among other actions, coordination with the DFAS, final notice to employees, developing NNPP procedures, creating new position descriptions, and processing pay plan adjustment personnel actions.
The NNSA Demonstration Project was designed by NNSA, with participation of and review by the DOE and the Office of Personnel Management. The NNSA Demonstration Project modifies the GS Classification and Pay System by creating broad career paths, establishing pay bands within each career path which may cover more than one GS grade, eliminates longevity-based step progression, and provides for annual pay adjustments based on performance. The NNPP has experienced higher-than-average attrition and has had difficulty filling positions, with pay/grade frequently cited as the reason for declination by candidates.
As a joint DON/DOE organization, Naval Reactors has historically managed its civilian workforce under each respective agency's personnel management system. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 National Defense Authorization Act states that the Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) may, “with concurrence of the Secretary of the Navy,” apply NNSA DEMO to all non-executive competitive service employees of the NNPP, thereby strengthening Naval Reactors' recruitment and retention of the highest-quality technical and professional workforce. This move aligns with the goal of shifting away from tenure-based personnel systems to performance-based personnel management systems while streamlining administrative processes inherent in managing Naval Reactors' employees under two different systems.
All DON NNPP current GS employees and vacant GS positions will be converted, excluding any Schedule C excepted service positions. There are approximately 210 affected positions, with all but about 40 of those positions located at the Washington Navy Yard. These positions will remain as DON positions. The NNPP will adopt the NNSA Demonstration Project Policies and Procedures Manual, dated March 2008, which will also be used by the servicing Human Resources Office and the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) to implement and support the NNPP. The intent of this notice is to promulgate this conversion to stakeholders within the Departments of Energy, Defense, and Navy. Affected employees are not represented by a labor union.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications (NIA) for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2021 for the National Center for Information and Technical Support for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.116D. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Shedita Alston, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 2B194, Washington, DC 20202-4260. Telephone: (202) 453-7090. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Entities that can demonstrate the experience and capacity to improve postsecondary recruitment, transition, retention, and completion rates of students with disabilities by providing the following:
1.
(a) Information to assist individuals with disabilities who are prospective students of an IHE in planning for postsecondary education while the students are in secondary school;
(b) Information and technical assistance provided to individualized education program teams (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)) for secondary school students with disabilities, and to early outreach and student services programs, including programs authorized under subparts 2, 4, and 5 of title IV of the HEA, to support students across a broad spectrum of disabilities with the successful transition to postsecondary education;
(c) Research-based supports, services, and accommodations which are available in postsecondary settings, including services provided by other agencies such as vocational rehabilitation;
(d) Information on student mentoring and networking opportunities for students with disabilities; and
(e) Effective recruitment and transition programs at postsecondary educational institutions.
2.
(a) Collection and dissemination of best and promising practices and materials for accommodating and supporting students with disabilities, including practices and materials supported by the grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements authorized under subparts 1, 2, and 3 of title VII, part D, of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1140q);
(b) Development and provision of training modules for higher education faculty on exemplary practices for accommodating and supporting postsecondary students with disabilities across a range of academic fields, which may include universal design for learning and practices supported by the grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements authorized under subparts 1, 2, and 3 of title VII, part D, of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1140q); and
(c) Development of technology-based tutorials for higher education faculty and staff, including new faculty and graduate students, on best and promising practices related to support and retention of students with disabilities in postsecondary education.
3.
(a) Disability documentation requirements;
(b) Support services available;
(c) Links to financial aid;
(d) Accommodations policies;
(e) Accessible instructional materials;
(f) Other topics relevant to students with disabilities; and
(g) The information in the report described in paragraph (5) below.
4.
5.
(a) A review of the activities and the effectiveness of the programs authorized under title VII, part D of the HEA;
(b) Annual enrollment and graduation rates of students with disabilities in IHEs from publicly reported data;
(c) Recommendations for effective postsecondary supports and services for students with disabilities, and how such supports and services may be widely implemented at IHEs;
(d) Recommendations on reducing barriers to full participation for students with disabilities in higher education; and
(e) A description of the strategies with a demonstrated record of effectiveness in improving the success of such students in postsecondary education.
6.
(1) Means an educational institution in any State that—
(i) Admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate, or persons who meet the requirements of section 484(d) of the HEA;
(ii) Is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of education beyond secondary education;
(iii) Provides an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor's degree or provides not less than a 2-year program that is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree, or awards a degree that is acceptable for admission to a graduate or professional degree program, subject to review and approval by the Secretary;
(iv) Is a public or other nonprofit institution; and
(v) Is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, or if not so accredited, is an institution that has been granted pre-accreditation status by such an agency or association that has been recognized by the Secretary for the granting of pre-accreditation status, and the Secretary has determined that there is satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of such an agency or association within a reasonable time; and
(2) Also includes—
(i) Any school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation and that meets the provision of paragraphs (1)(i), (ii), (iv), and (v); and
(ii) A public or nonprofit private educational institution in any State that, in lieu of the requirement in paragraph (1)(i), admits as regular students individuals—
(A) Who are beyond the age of compulsory school attendance in the State in which the institution is located; or
(B) Who will be dually or concurrently enrolled in the institution and a secondary school.
(1) Provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and
(2) Reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
1.
(a) Supporting students with disabilities in postsecondary education;
(b) Technical knowledge necessary for the dissemination of information in accessible formats;
(c) Working with diverse types of IHEs, including community colleges; and
(d) The subjects necessary to support students across the broad spectrum of disabilities.
2.a.
b.
c.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, and no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
1.
(1) The Secretary considers whether the applicant has demonstrated expertise and experience sufficient to meet the requirements to be an eligible entity under section 777(a)(3) of the HEA.
(2) In considering eligibility, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) Demonstrated expertise in supporting students with disabilities in postsecondary education;
(ii) Demonstrated expertise in technical knowledge necessary for the dissemination of information in accessible formats;
(iii) Demonstrated expertise in working with diverse types of IHEs, including community colleges; and
(iv) Demonstrated expertise in the subjects necessary to support students across the broad spectrum of disabilities.
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs;
(ii) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project;
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other appropriate agencies and organizations providing services to the target population;
(iv) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance;
(v) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.
(vi) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
(vii) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the resources to operate the project beyond the length of the grant, including a multi-year financial and operating model and accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of any partners; evidence of broad support from stakeholders (
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers:
(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services;
(ii) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous academic standards;
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services; and
(iv) The extent to which the technical assistance services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources.
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator;
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel; and
(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;
(ii) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project;
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project;
(iv) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project; and
(v) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation to be conducted for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project;
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible; and
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
A panel of three non-Federal reviewers will review and score each application in accordance with the selection criteria. A rank order funding slate will be made from this review. An award will be made in rank order according to the average score received from the combined peer review points.
In a tie-breaking situation under this program, preference will be given to the applicant with the highest score under the “Quality of the Project Design” criterion. If there is still a tie after implementing the first tiebreaker, preference will be given to the applicant with the highest score under the “Quality of Project Services” criterion. If there is still a tie after applying the secondary tiebreaker, preference will be given to the applicant with the highest score under the “Quality of the Management Plan” selection criterion. If there is still a tie after applying a third tiebreaker, preference will be given to the applicant with the highest score under the “Quality of the Project Evaluation” selection criterion.
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
5.
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
1. The extent to which the project serves students with disabilities, families of students with disabilities, individualized education program teams, and individualized plan for employment teams, including growth in numbers served over time, and improved user satisfaction ratings with the services received;
2. The extent to which the project provides information and technical assistance to faculty, staff, and administrators of IHEs aimed at improving accommodation, retention, and completion rates of students with disabilities, including growth in the number of persons and institutions served over time, and improved user satisfaction ratings with services received, baseline change over time in retention, and completion rates of students with disabilities at the institutions served; and
3. The extent and growth over time in utilization of the database of disability services information by IHEs, including improved user satisfaction ratings of the accessibility and utility of the information provided.
These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for an award under this program to give careful consideration to the operationalization of the measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project.
If funded, you will be required to collect and report data in your project's annual performance report (34 CFR 75.590).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct an emergency review of a new information collection.
The Department requested emergency processing from OMB for this information collection request on September 16, 2021. As a result, the Department is providing the public with the opportunity to comment under the full comment period. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 22, 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 Amy Banks, 202-453-6704.
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 Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open in-person/virtual hybrid meeting.
This notice announces an in-person/virtual hybrid meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, October 21, 2021; 8:00 a.m.-2:35 p.m.
The opportunities for public comment are at 9:50 a.m. and 2:20 p.m. MT.
These times are subject to change; please contact the ICP Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) Administrator (below) for confirmation of times prior to the meeting.
This hybrid meeting will be open to the public virtually via Zoom only. To attend virtually, please contact Jordan Davies, ICP CAB Administrator, by email
Board members, Department of Energy (DOE) representatives, agency liaisons, and support staff will participate in-person at: Sun Valley Inn, 1 Sun Valley Road, Sun Valley, ID 83353.
Jordan Davies, ICP CAB Administrator, by phone (720) 452-7379 or email
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, October 21, 2021; 11:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
Friday, October 22, 2021; 11:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
This meeting will be held digitally via webcast using Zoom. Instructions for Zoom, as well as any updates to meeting times or meeting agenda, can be found on the BERAC meeting website at:
Dr. Tristram West, Designated Federal Officer, BERAC, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, SC-23/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-1290. Phone 301-903-5155; fax (301) 903-5051 or email:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC Form 580 (Interrogatory on Fuel and Energy Purchase Practices Pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act).
Comments on the collection of information are due November 22, 2021.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC21-39-000) by by one of the following methods.
Electronic filing through
•
• For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
○
○
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
For additional information on AACs, see the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and Desk Reference for FERC Form 580 on the Commission's website.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h. Potential
i.
j. Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on August 4, 2021. Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC provided public notice of its request on July 29, 2021. In a letter dated September 15, 2021, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; and NOAA Fisheries
l. With this notice, we are designating Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed and/or printed on the Commission's website (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 2302. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by August 31, 2024.
p. Register online at
Take notice that the following amendment application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
The licensee previously filed a draft Biological Assessment (BA) with the Commission on March 8, 2021 for the proposed seepage reduction and crest improvement project. On April 28, 2021, Commission staff adopted the licensee's draft BA without changes as the Commission's final BA and requested formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a Commission staff-led technical conference to discuss methods natural gas companies may use to mitigate the effects of direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions resulting from Natural Gas Act sections 3 and 7 authorizations. The technical conference will be held on Friday, November 19, 2021, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time. The conference will be held virtually.
The conference will be open for the public to attend virtually, and there is no fee for attendance. Supplemental notices will be issued prior to the conference with further details regarding the agenda and how to participate as a panelist. Information on this technical conference will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a staff-led technical conference regarding regional transmission planning in the above-referenced proceeding on Monday, November 15, 2021, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The technical conference will seek to examine in detail issues and potential reforms related to regional transmission planning as described in the July 15, 2021 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding.
The conference will be held remotely. The Commission will issue a supplemental notice providing the agenda for the technical conference.
Individuals interested in participating as panelists should submit a self-nomination email by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 30, 2021, to
The conference will be open for the public to attend remotely. There is no fee for attendance. Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,
The conference will be transcribed. Transcripts will be available for a fee from Ace Reporting at (202) 347-3700.
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact David Tobenkin at
Take notice that on September 10, 2021, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 State Route 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, filed an application under section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations for authorization to abandon by sale to Kansas Gas Service, a division of ONE Gas, Inc. (KGS) certain delivery point facilities (Facilities) in Leavenworth County, Kansas, which connect Southern Star to the U.S. Penitentiary at Leavenworth (Penitentiary). The Facilities to be abandoned by sale are not used to provide direct firm service on behalf of any shipper, but currently provide secondary firm service to the Penitentiary, who now desires to become a firm customer of KGS. After the proposed sale, KGS will use the Facilities to directly serve the Penitentiary with gas transported by Southern Star under firm service agreements with KGS. Southern Star asserts that there will be no change to its certificated capacity and no impact on any of its firm shippers as a part of the proposed abandonment by sale, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions regarding Southern Star's application may be directed to Cindy Thompson, Manager, Regulatory & Compliance, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 4700 State Route 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, by telephone at (270) 852-4655 or by email at
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
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 29, 2021. How to file comments and motions to intervene is explained below.
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 29, 2021. However, 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.
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
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.
There are two ways to submit your comments and motions to intervene to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-494-000 in your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions.
(1) You may file your comments or motions to intervene electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP21-494-000).
Motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 4700 State Route 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, by telephone at (270) 852-4655 or by email at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the projects will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.f
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
Intervention Deadline: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 29, 2021.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The existing project consists of: (1) A 195-foot-long, 18.5-foot-high concrete gravity dam; (2) an impoundment with a surface area of 121 acres at an elevation of 386.87 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29); (3) a steel headgate structure that includes three sluice gates; (4) an 80-foot-long steel penstock that provides flow to a 375-kilowatt (kW) semi-Kaplan turbine-generator unit located in a powerhouse (Kendall Plant); (5) an approximately 5-foot-long tailrace that discharges to the Missisquoi River from the Kendall Plant; (6) an approximately 210-foot-long headrace canal located downstream of the headgate structure; (7) an intake structure, at the downstream end of the headrace canal, equipped with a sluice gate and a trashrack; (8) a powerhouse containing a 600-kW vertical Kaplan turbine-generator unit (Village Plant); (9) an approximately 240-foot-long tailrace that discharges from the Village Plant to the Missisquoi River; and (10) appurtenant facilities. The project creates an approximately 1,400-foot-long bypassed reach of the Missisquoi River.
The Village voluntarily operates the project in a run-of-river mode. Article 401 of the current license requires the Village to: (1) Maintain a minimum flow of 293 cubic feet per second (cfs) from April 15-June 15, and 120 cfs from June 16-April 14, or inflow, whichever is less, from the Kendall Plant to the bypassed reach; and (2) maintain a year-round minimum flow of 293 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, from the Village Plant to the downstream reach of the Missisquoi River.
The Village proposes to: (1) Continue operating the project in a run-of-river mode; (2) provide a year-round minimum flow of 243 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, from the Kendall Plant to the bypassed reach; (3) develop a recreation management plan for improving recreation at the project; (4) release 1 inch of spill over the top of the project dam crest gates to provide an aesthetic veil of flow over the dam; (5) develop an operation compliance monitoring plan for maintaining minimum flows, impoundment levels, and run-of-river operation; and (6) develop a historic properties management plan to address and mitigate project effects on historic properties.
m. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
n. You may also register online at
o. Scoping Process.
Commission staff will prepare either an environmental assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that describes and evaluates the probable effects, if any, of the licensee's proposed action and alternatives. The EA or EIS will consider environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The Commission's scoping process will help determine the required level of analysis and satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the Commission prepares an EA or an EIS. At this time, we do not anticipate holding on-site scoping meetings. Instead, we are soliciting written comments and suggestions on the preliminary list of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the NEPA document, as described in scoping document 1 (SD1), issued September 15, 2021.
Copies of the SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the NEPA document were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of SD1 may be viewed on the web at
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on September 14, 2021, pursuant to section 211 of the Federal Power Act,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, authorizes a noncompetitive $50 million grant program to establish or enhance state and tribal response programs. These response programs generally address the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of brown fields sites and other sites with actual or perceived contamination. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will consider grant requests up to a maximum of $1.0 million per state or tribe. This document announces the availability of guidance that will assist states and tribes in the development and submission of CERCLA section 128(a) noncompetitive funding requests and utilization of these funds.
The FY 2022 CERCLA section 128(a) grant funding guidance is applicable as of October 1, 2021, and EPA Regional offices will accept requests for section 128(a) noncompetitive grant awards through December 17, 2021.
Melissa Papasavvas, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number (202) 566-0435.
You may be affected by this action if you administer a State or Tribal response program that oversees
CERCLA section 128(a) (42 U.S.C. 9628(a)) authorizes a noncompetitive $50 million grant program to “establish or enhance” state and tribal response programs. CERCLA section 128(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) authorizes a noncompetitive $1.5 million technical assistance grant program to assist small communities, Indian tribes, rural areas, or disadvantaged areas to carry out activities outlined in CERCLA section 104(k)(7) (42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(7)) (
Section 128(a) response program grants are funded with categorical State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) appropriations. Categorical grants are issued by Congress to fund state and local governments for narrowly-defined purposes. This funding is intended for those states and tribes that have the required management and administrative capacity within their government to administer a federal grant. The primary goal of this funding is to ensure that state and tribal response programs include, or are taking reasonable steps to include, certain elements of an environmental response program and that the program establishes and maintains a public record of sites addressed.
Section 128(a) cooperative agreements are awarded and administered by the EPA regional offices. Generally, these response programs address the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfields sites and other sites with actual or perceived contamination. Subject to the availability of funds, EPA regional personnel will provide technical assistance to states and tribes as they apply for and carry out section 128(a) cooperative agreements.
Requests submitted by the December 17, 2021 request deadline are preliminary; final cooperative agreement work plans and budgets will be negotiated with the EPA regional offices once final funding allocation determinations are made. As in previous years, EPA will place special emphasis on reviewing a cooperative agreement recipient's use of prior section 128(a) funding in making allocation decisions, and unexpended balances are subject to 40 CFR 35.118 and 35.518 to the extent consistent with this guidance. EPA will also prioritize funding for recipients establishing their response programs.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the State of Rhode Island and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are revising their respective approved Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) programs to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
All interested parties may request a public hearing for any of the above EPA determinations. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by October 22, 2021 to the Regional Administrator at the address shown below. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator.
However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by this date, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received, and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his/her own motion, this determination shall become final and effective October 22, 2021.
Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination; (3) information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and (4) the signature of the individual making the request, or if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following office(s) below. Please call to arrange a visit.
For state-specific documents:
Jeri Weiss, U.S. EPA—New England, Water Division, telephone (617) 918-1568.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has adopted a drinking water regulation for the Revised Total Coliform Rule (78 FR 10269) promulgated on February 13, 2013. After review of documentation submitted by the Commonwealth, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the Commonwealth's Revised Total Coliform Rule is no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations.
The State of Rhode Island has adopted a drinking water regulation for the Revised Total Coliform Rule (78 FR 10269) promulgated on February 13, 2013. After review of documentation submitted by the state, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the state's Revised Total Coliform Rule is no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of a public meeting.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is
The meeting will be held on October 12, 2021, from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. eastern time.
This will be a virtual meeting. There will be no in-person gathering for this meeting. For more information about attending, providing oral statements, and accessibility for the meeting, as well as sending written comments, see the
Elizabeth Corr, NDWAC Designated Federal Officer, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (Mail Code 4601), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-3798; email address:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public meetings of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Particulate Matter (PM) Panel. A public meeting will be held for the CASAC PM Panel to receive a briefing from EPA on updates to the science assessment and updates to the policy assessment that support the agency's reconsideration of the 2020 PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). A second public meeting will be held for the panel to peer review the agency's science assessment updates and policy assessment updates.
The public meeting for the panel to receive the briefing from EPA will be held on October 14, 2021, from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. The public meeting for the panel to peer review the documents will be held on Wednesday, November 17, 2021, from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, November 18, 2021, from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m.; Friday, November 19, 2021, from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m.; Wednesday, December 1, 2021, from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m.; and Thursday, December 2, 2021, from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. All times listed are in Eastern Time.
The meetings will be conducted virtually. Please refer to the CASAC website at
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this notice may contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone at (202) 564-2050 or via email at
The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2, and conducts business in accordance with FACA and related regulations. The CASAC and the CASAC PM Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the CASAC PM Panel will hold a public meeting to receive a briefing from EPA on updates to the science assessment and updates to the policy assessment that support the agency's reconsideration of the 2020 PM NAAQS and a public meeting for the panel to peer review the agency's science assessment updates and policy assessment updates.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of data availability.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the availability of data on the administration of the assurance provisions of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading programs for the control periods in 2020. Total emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
September 22, 2021.
Questions concerning this action should be addressed to Garrett Powers at (202) 564-2300 or
The regulations for each CSAPR trading program contain “assurance provisions” designed to ensure that the emissions reductions required from each state covered by the program occur within the state. If the total emissions from a given state's affected units exceed the state's assurance level under the program, then two allowances must be surrendered for each ton of emissions exceeding the assurance level (in addition to the ordinary obligation to surrender one allowance for each ton of emissions). In the quarterly emissions reports covering the 2020 control period, Mississippi and Missouri units participating in the CSAPR NO
When a state's assurance level is exceeded, responsibility for surrendering the required additional allowances is apportioned among groups of units in the state represented by “common designated representatives” based on the extent to which each such group's emissions exceeded the group's share of the state's assurance level. For the CSAPR NO
On May 17, 2021, EPA published a document in the
In this document, EPA is providing notice of the final calculations of the amounts of additional allowances that must be surrendered. Responsibility for surrendering 520 additional allowances for the Mississippi exceedance has been apportioned between the groups of units operated by Entergy Corporation (302 allowances) and Mississippi Power Company (218 allowances). Responsibility for surrendering 4,876 additional allowances for the Missouri exceedance has been apportioned between the groups of units operated by Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. (4,862 allowances), the municipal utility of Chillicothe (2 allowances), and the municipal utility of Higginsville (12 allowances). Each set of owners and operators identified pursuant to this notice of the final calculations must hold the required additional allowances in an assurance account by November 1, 2021.
The data and final calculations are set forth in an Excel spreadsheet entitled “2020_CSAPR_assurance_provision_calculations_final.xlsx” available at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) creates two new Innovation Zones for Program Experimental Licenses in designated areas in and nearby the campuses of North Carolina State University (NC State Innovation Zone) in Raleigh, NC and Northeastern University (Northeastern Innovation Zone) in Boston, MA and expands the geographical boundary of the previously established Innovation Zone in New York City.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Anthony Serafini, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2456,
This is a summary of the Commission's document,
1. The two new zones the Commission establishes herein are based on detailed proposals from the PAWR program. This program for new technology experimentation is funded by the National Science Foundation along with a consortium consisting of over thirty technology and telecommunications companies. According to PAWR, this program “. . . will enable experimental exploration of robust new wireless devices, communication techniques, networks, systems, and services that will revolutionize the nation's wireless ecosystem, thereby enhancing broadband connectivity, leveraging the emerging Internet of Things (IoT), and sustaining US leadership and economic competitiveness for decades to come.” The Commission anticipates that the experimentation done at these zones may also materially improve understanding of opportunities for, and capabilities of, open, standards-based wireless networks. PAWR program testbeds are equipped for Open radio access networks (Open RAN) research and testing, and PAWR teams are actively engaged with the Open RAN development community.
2. These Innovation Zones will provide new capabilities and complement the existing Innovation Zones in Salt Lake City and New York City. More specifically, in Raleigh, North Carolina, PAWR is initiating AERPAW—Aerial Experimentation and Research Platform for Advanced Wireless. This project will create a city-scale platform to focus on new use cases for advanced wireless technologies that are emerging for unmanned aerial systems. AERPAW will focus on how cellular networks and advanced wireless technologies can enable beyond visual line-of-sight unmanned aerial
3. At Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, PAWR will be supporting the transition of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Colosseum network emulator to a shared platform that is usable by the research community. Colosseum, the world's largest wireless network emulator, was originally designed to support DARPA's Spectrum Collaboration Challenge. With the conclusion of that challenge, the larger research community will now be able to take advantage of Colosseum's unique capabilities, including the ability to emulate full-stack communications, and to support artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms and hardware in the loop. This project is expected to bring academia, government, and industry researchers together to accelerate advancements in wireless networked systems including Open RAN.
4. Under a Program License, qualified institutions may conduct testing for multiple non-related experiments under a single authorization within a defined geographic area under control of the licensee and where the licensee has institutional processes to manage and oversee experiments. The Innovation Zone takes this concept a step further by effectively providing an extension of a Program License's authorized area of operation. Such licensees are permitted to operate within an Innovation Zone, under the parameters set for that particular Zone, without having to modify their licenses to cover the new location.
5. The Commission is using the Office of Engineering and Technology's (OET) Experimental Licensing System web page to post the Innovation Zone designations and detail the guidelines the Commission has established for each particular zone—including the specific geographic area(s) the Commission has designated and applicable technical parameters, such as frequency bands and power limits. Those wishing to test in an Innovation Zone must meet the Program License eligibility requirements, hold an existing Program License and operate in accordance with the geographic areas and technical limits established for the Innovation Zone. Prior to operating in an Innovation Zone, details for each Program Licensee experiment will be posted to the FCC web page as described below. This posting will implement the Program License rules procedures that require notification of intended operations so that all nearby licensees and federal users have full knowledge of operations in an area. Program licensees must still meet the timing requirements prescribed by the Commission's rules and agreements with other Federal agencies. Specifically, program licensees are required to wait 10-days prior to beginning tests on spectrum allocated exclusively for non-federal use and 15-days when using spectrum allocated for federal use including shared non-federal/federal use. Finally, as detailed below, the PAWR Project Office will serve as a frequency coordinator for these Innovation Zones; operation may not commence without prior coordinating through that office.
6. Both the NC State and Northeastern Innovation Zones are established for a period of five years from the release date of this public notice. The term may be renewed upon request at the end of this term.
7. A program licensee will be required to indicate its call sign and identify the Innovation Zone(s) in which it intends to operate. A program licensee must operate within the parameters established for the Innovation Zone within which it intends to operate. It will provide specific technical data, a description of the experiment, and a stop buzzer contact person for posting on the appropriate Innovation Zone web page(s). Parties will use OET's Experimental Licensing System web page to submit this information.
8. Program licensees must register on OET's Experimental Licensing System web page under the respective Innovation Zone web page at:
9. In addition to requesting to operate in an Innovation Zone, a Program Licensee must also coordinate its operations prior to commencing its tests. The PAWR Project Office will serve as the frequency/operations coordinator for the Innovation Zones established and/or modified herein (as well as the Salt Lake City Innovation Zone). In this role, the PAWR Project Office will offer non-discriminatory service to all interested Program Licensees to coordinate specific times and locations for each Program Licensee's operations to avoid interference to other spectrum users and between Program Licensees' tests. The frequency coordinator may act as a central clearinghouse to obtain consent from other potentially affected Commission licensees and/or federal spectrum users for Innovation Zone operations. Alternatively, Program Licensees may coordinate their own arrangements with these authorized spectrum users. In such cases, Program Licensees must still coordinate specific operations through the PAWR Project Office. Note that designating PAWR as the Innovation Zone frequency coordinator does not confer operating authority on PAWR nor does it confer sole authority for PAWR to permit operations as Program Licensees must also register on OET's Innovation Zone Registration web page. Additionally, current Commission rules do not allow airborne use in certain bands including active as well as passive receive-only bands (
10. Interested Program Licensees may contact Mari Silbey, PAWR Program Director, at
11. The NC State Innovation Zone will encompass two separate areas and program licensees will be permitted to use either or both areas.
12. The first area encompasses approximately 10.5 square miles for testing over the NC State University campus, a suburban residential area and
13. To minimize the risk of harmful interference to incumbent operations and avoid areas where airborne operations may be restricted, PAWR states that their primary area for airborne transmissions within the larger Innovation Zone will be over approximately 3 square miles in the Lake Wheeler area in the southern portion of the Innovation Zone. This area is defined by the following coordinates:
14. The second area of NC State Innovation Zone will extend into the Town of Cary, North Carolina and cover approximately 3 square miles. This area is anticipated to support four fixed towers with permanent wireless transceivers. The tower locations are yet to be determined, but will be restricted to ensure all testing is confined within the Innovation Zone as defined by the following coordinates:
15. The Northeastern University Innovation Zone will encompass two separate areas and program licensees will be permitted to use either or both areas.
16. The first area is on Northeastern University's main campus in Boston, MA and will cover a triangular tract of approximately 0.8 square miles. This area is defined as the area roughly between 361 Huntington Avenue as the northern vertex, Carter Playground as the eastern vertex, and 860 Columbus avenue as the southern boundary. The coordinates for this area are:
17. The second area of the Northeastern University Innovation Zone is on Northeastern University's satellite campus in Burlington, MA and will cover a polygon of approximately 0.9 square miles. This area is defined as the area west of Cambridge Street in Burlington MA and bordering Mary Cummings Park. The coordinates for this area are:
18. The New York City Innovation Zone is being modified to cover the three Columbia University and City College of New York campus areas and will be defined as the area contained within:
• W 116 St from the Hudson River to Morningside Avenue (Through Riverside and Morningside Parks and The Columbia University Campus).
• Morningside Ave from W 116 St to W 124 St.
• W 124 from Morningside Ave to St Nicholas Ave.
• St Nicholas Ave from W 124 St to W 138 St.
• W 138 from St. Nicholas Ave to Broadway (through St. Nicholas park and the CCNY campus).
• Broadway from W 138 St to W 133 St.
• W 133 St from Broadway to the Hudson River (through the park).
• Hudson River from W 133 to W 116.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 22, 2021. If you anticipate that you will be
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
Specifically, we require providers to disclose to subscribers the following information: (1) Availability of backup power sources; (2) service limitations with and without backup power during a power outage; (3) purchase and replacement options; (4) expected backup power duration; (5) proper usage and storage conditions for the backup power source; (6) subscriber backup power self-testing and monitoring instructions; and (7) backup power warranty details, if any. Each element of this information must be given to subscribers both at the point of sale and annually thereafter, as described in the rule.
The disclosure requirements are intended to equip subscribers with necessary information to purchase and maintain a source of backup power to enhance their ability to maintain access to reliable 911 service from their homes.
We permit providers to convey both the initial and annual disclosures and information described above by any means reasonably calculated to reach the individual subscriber. For example, a provider may meet this obligation through a combination of disclosures via email, an online billing statement, or other digital or electronic means for subscribers that communicate with the provider through these means. For a subscriber that does not communicate with the provider through email and/or online billing statements—such as someone who ordered service on the phone or in a physical store and receives a paper bill by regular mail—email would not be a means reasonably calculated to reach that subscriber.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC seeks to continue its engagement and collaboration with innovators in the financial, non-financial, and technology sectors to, among other things, identify, develop and promote technology-driven innovations among community and other banks in a manner that ensures the safety and soundness of FDIC-supervised and -insured institutions. An innovation pilot program framework can provide a regulatory environment in which the FDIC, in conjunction with individual proposals collected from innovators, including banks, will provide tailored regulatory and supervisory assistance, when appropriate, to facilitate the testing of innovative and advanced technologies, products, services, systems, or activities. As part of an innovation pilot program, innovators may request information from banks and other members of the public outside of their normal course of business. Any information provided by banks and other members of the public will be provided on a voluntary basis. FDIC staff may similarly request information on a voluntary basis from banks or other members of the public to evaluate the products or services developed in the pilot programs. The FDIC invites the general public, including persons who may have an interest in participating in innovation pilot programs, and other Federal agencies to comment on the agency's collection of information that may result from innovators obtaining information from banks and other members of the public in connection with innovation pilot programs, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. At the end of the comment period, any comments and recommendations received will be reviewed to determine the extent to which the collection of proposals should be modified prior to the submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 22, 2021.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should reference “Information Collection for Innovation Pilot Programs.” A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Jennifer Jones, Counsel, 202-898-6768,
1.
The FDIC anticipates that products developed as part of innovation pilot programs will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of bank operations, and eventually, examinations, while increasing transparency and ultimately reducing the cost of regulatory compliance for participating institutions. In addition, the FDIC anticipates that proposals provided in connection with the innovation pilot programs will involve cutting-edge innovations and novel approaches or applications involving a banking product, service, system, or activity that benefits and can lead to better outcomes for consumers.
As part of an innovation pilot program, innovators may request information from banks and other members of the public outside of their normal course of business. Any information provided by banks and other members of the public will be provided on a voluntary basis. FDIC staff may similarly request information on a voluntary basis from banks or other members of the public to evaluate the products or services developed in the pilot programs. This information is intended to allow banks and the FDIC to analyze the health of the overall banking system, critical financial sectors, or national, regional or local economic conditions (
The annual burden for this information collection is estimated to be 4,000 hours. This represents an increase of hours from the current burden estimate and also a change in focus. In particular, when this information collection was first obtained, it included the burden imposed on the innovators and partner banks. In review of this information collection, the FDIC has decided to transfer the burden imposed on innovators to existing information collection 3064-0072 entitled, “Acquisition Services Information Requirements,” which is related to the FDIC's procurement process. The remaining hours in this information collection, which have been updated and increased, reflect the burden imposed on banks and other members of the public in connection with innovation pilot programs.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collections described below (OMB Control No. 3064-0025 and -0134).
Comments must be submitted on or before November 22, 2021.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Manny Cabeza, Regulatory Counsel, 202-898-3767,
1.
2.
Tuesday, September 28, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on September 30, 2021.
1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC.
(This meeting will be a virtual meeting)
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices.
Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes and production would disclose investigative techniques.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreement to the Secretary by email at
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than October 22, 2021.
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting
The meeting will be held on November 3, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., EDT. The public may submit written comments from September 22, 2021 through October 27, 2021.
You may submit comments by mail to: Sherri Diana, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-34, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. Meeting Information: Audio Conference Call via FTS Conferencing. The USA toll-free dial-in number is 1-866-659-0537; the pass code is 9933701.
Rashaun Roberts, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, Mailstop C-24, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, Telephone: (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1(800)CDC-INFO, Email:
In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC.
The Advisory Board's charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and rechartered under Executive Order 13889 on March 22, 2020, and will terminate on March 22, 2022.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting and request for comment.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This meeting is open to the public. Time will be available for public comment. The meeting will be webcast live via the World Wide Web; for more information on ACIP please visit the ACIP website:
The meeting will be held on October 20-21, 2021, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., EDT (times subject to change). The public may submit written comments from September 22, 2021 through October 21, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. CDC-2021-0098 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Written public comments submitted up to 72 hours prior to the ACIP meeting will be provided to ACIP members before the meeting.
Stephanie Thomas, ACIP Committee Management Specialist, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-H24-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027; Telephone: (404) 639-8367; Email:
Interested persons or organizations are invited to participate by submitting written views, recommendations, and data. Please note that comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are subject to public disclosure. Comments will be posted on
If the number of persons requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled time, CDC will conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled public comment session. CDC staff will notify individuals regarding their request to speak by email by October 19, 2021. To accommodate the significant interest in participation in the oral public comment session of ACIP meetings, each speaker will be limited to 3 minutes, and each speaker may only speak once per meeting.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This meeting is open to the public. Time will be available for public comment. The meeting will be webcast live via the World Wide Web; for more information on ACIP please visit the ACIP website:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP); August 30, 2021, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and August 31, 2021, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., EDT (times subject to change), in the amended FRN.
The virtual meeting was published in the
The virtual meeting is being corrected to change the dates and times, addresses and written public comment and should read as follows:
A notice of this ACIP meeting has also been posted on CDC's ACIP website at:
•
•
In accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), less than 15 calendar days' notice is being given for this meeting due to the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and rapidly evolving COVID-19 vaccine development and regulatory processes. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has determined that COVID-19 is a Public Health Emergency.
Stephanie Thomas, ACIP Committee Management Specialist, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-H24-8, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027; Telephone: 404-639-8367; Email:
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is withdrawing approval of abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) BA110013/0032 for 6 Percent Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.4 in 0.9 Percent Sodium Chloride Injection in EXCEL® Plastic Container, held by B. Braun Medical, Inc. B. Braun Medical, Inc., requested in writing that the Agency's approval of the application be withdrawn because the drug is no longer being marketed and has waived its opportunity for a hearing.
Approval is withdrawn as of October 22, 2021.
Myrna Hanna, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240 402-7911.
B. Braun Medical Inc., 901 Marcon Blvd., Allentown, PA 18109, has requested that FDA withdraw approval of ANDA BA110013/0032, pursuant to § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)), because the drug is no longer being marketed. By its request, B. Braun Medical Inc. has also waived its opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application under § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.
Therefore, approval of the application listed in the table, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of October 22, 2021. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce for products without an approved new drug application or ANDA violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). The drug product that is listed in the table above that is in inventory on October 22, 2021 may continue to be dispensed until the inventory has been depleted or the drug product has reached its expiration date or otherwise becomes violative, whichever occurs first.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is hosting a virtual public meeting to discuss proposed recommendations for the reauthorization of the Biosimilar User Fee Act (BsUFA) for fiscal years (FYs) 2023 through 2027. The BsUFA authorizes FDA to collect user fees to support the process for the review of biosimilar biological product applications. The current legislative authority for BsUFA expires in September 2022. At that time, new legislation will be required for FDA to continue collecting user fees in future fiscal years. Following discussions with the regulated industry and consultations with public stakeholders, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) directs FDA to publish the recommendations for the reauthorized program in the
The public meeting will be held on November 2, 2021, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Eastern Time, and will be held by webcast only. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public
Registration to attend the meeting and other information can be found at
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 December 2, 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
Emily Ewing, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 240-402-0196,
FDA is announcing a virtual public meeting to discuss proposed recommendations for the reauthorization of BsUFA, the legislation that authorizes FDA to collect user fees to support the process for the review of biosimilar biological product applications. The current authorization of the program (BsUFA II) expires in September 2022. Without new legislation, FDA will no longer be able to collect user fees for future FYs to fund the process for the review of biosimilar biological product applications. Section 744I(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-53(f)(2)) requires the Agency perform the following actions after holding negotiations with regulated industry members: (1) Present recommendations to the relevant Congressional committees; (2) publish recommendations in the
This notice, the 30-day comment period, and the public meeting will satisfy some of these requirements. After the public meeting, we will revise the recommendations as necessary and present our proposed recommendations to the Congressional committees.
The purpose of the meeting is to hear the public's views on the proposed recommendations for the reauthorized program (BsUFA III). The following information is provided to help potential meeting participants better understand the history and evolution of the BsUFA program and the status of the proposed BsUFA III recommendations.
BsUFA is a law that authorizes FDA to assess and collect fees from drug companies that submit marketing applications for certain biosimilar biological products. BsUFA was originally enacted in 2012 as the Biosimilar User Fee Act under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA, Pub. L. 112-144) for a period of 5 years. In 2017, BsUFA was renewed for 5 more years under the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (FDARA, Pub. L. 115-52).
BsUFA is intended to provide additional revenues so that FDA can hire staff, improve systems, and continue a well-managed biosimilar
With the current authorization of BsUFA II under FDARA, FDA implemented a review program (“the Program”) to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the first cycle review process. The Program allows for additional communication between the FDA review team and applicants of biosimilar biological products, including mid-cycle communications and late-cycle meetings, while adding 60 days to the review clock to provide for this increased interaction and to address review issues. BsUFA II also includes commitments to advance development of biosimilar biological products through further clarification of the regulatory pathway that permits a biosimilar biological product to be licensed under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act, and to enhance capacity for biosimilar guidance development, reviewer training, and timely communication. More information on these commitments can be found in the BsUFA II Commitment Letter at
As part of the current authorization, FDA established an independent fee structure and fee amounts to improve program funding predictability, stability, and administrative efficiency. The new structure established a BsUFA target revenue based on BsUFA program costs and updated the overall fee structure and related financial mechanisms. The agreement also included commitments to enhance management of user fee resources through the development of a resource capacity planning capability and third-party evaluation of program resource management, management of the carryover balance, along with the publication and annual update of a 5-year financial plan.
The current authorization also includes several commitments to improve the hiring and retention of critical review staff through modernization of FDA's hiring system, augmentation of hiring staff capacity and capabilities, creation of a dedicated function focused on staffing the program, reporting on hiring metrics, and a comprehensive and continuous assessment of hiring and retention. A list of the deliverables developed to meet BsUFA II commitments is available on the FDA web page
In preparing the proposed recommendations to Congress for BsUFA reauthorization, FDA conducted discussions with regulated industry members, as required by the law. We began the BsUFA reauthorization process by publishing a notice in the
Following the November 2020 public meeting, FDA conducted negotiations with regulated industry from March 2021 through June 2021. As directed by Congress, FDA posted minutes of these meetings on its web page at
The proposed enhancements for BsUFA III address many of the top priorities identified by public stakeholders, regulated industry, and FDA. While some of the proposed enhancements are new, many either build on successful enhancements or refine elements from the existing program. The enhancements are proposed in the following areas: Supplemental applications, meeting management, best practices in communication between FDA and sponsors, inspections and alternative tools, interchangeable biosimilar biological product development, regulatory science, finance, hiring and retention, and information technology. The full text of the proposed BsUFA III Commitment Letter can be found on the Agency's web page “BsUFA III: Fiscal Years 2023—2027,” available at
To expedite the review of supplemental biosimilar biological product applications, FDA proposes to establish new supplement categories, timelines, and performance goals. New review timelines range from 3 to 10 months, depending on the content and category of the supplement submission. Certain supplements for safety labeling updates and labeling updates to add or remove an indication that do not contain efficacy data sets would have shorter review timelines than supplements in other categories. These enhancements are described in section I.A.2 of the proposed BsUFA III Commitment Letter.
To improve overall meeting management, FDA proposes to modify the Biosimilar Initial Advisory (BIA) meeting, create a new Type 2a meeting, and modify the timing of Type 4 meeting background packages. FDA would not require the submission of preliminary comparative analytical data for a BIA meeting. The new Type 2a meeting would allow for quicker discussion on a narrow set of issues (
To enhance communication with sponsors during biosimilar biologic product application review, FDA proposes to update relevant guidances, our Manual of Policies and Procedures, and our Standard Operating Procedures and Policies regarding best practices in communication. FDA would utilize lessons learned from BsUFA II to update the relevant documents, as appropriate. The details of this enhancement are found in section II.A of the proposed BsUFA III Commitment Letter.
To facilitate the timely development of biosimilar biological products and their availability to patients, FDA proposes to notify sponsors of certain pre-license inspections and to issue guidance on FDA's thinking on the use of alternative tools to assess manufacturing facilities beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. These enhancements are described in section II.B of the proposed BsUFA III Commitment Letter.
Sponsors employ Use-Related Risk Analyses (URRA) studies to identify the need for risk mitigation strategies and to design a human factors (HF) validation study. Based on a URRA, a sponsor may propose that a HF validation study is not needed to support the safe and effective use of a biosimilar biologic-device combination product. FDA proposes establishing new procedures for the review of URRAs along with performance goals. Human factors studies are conducted to evaluate the user interface of a biosimilar biologic-device combination product to eliminate or mitigate use-related hazards that may affect the safe and effective use of the combination product. Over the past decade, more combination products have been developed to deliver therapeutics via different routes of administration (
FDA proposes a focused effort in BsUFA III to further advance the development of safe and effective interchangeable biosimilar biological products. This effort would address current needs, prospectively identify future needs, and incorporate the following components: (1) Research leveraging the BsUFA III Regulatory Science Pilot Program; (2) foundational guidance development; and (3) stakeholder engagement involving a scientific workshop on the development of interchangeable biosimilar biological products to help identify future needs. Associated with this workshop, FDA would issue draft and final strategy documents outlining FDA's actions to facilitate the development of interchangeable biosimilar biological products. The details of this enhancement are described in section II.D of the proposed BsUFA III Commitment Letter.
To enhance regulatory decision-making and facilitate science-based recommendations in areas foundational to biosimilar biological product development, FDA proposes to pilot a regulatory science program broadly applicable to biosimilar and interchangeable biological product development, with project goals not specific to a product or product class. The pilot program would focus on two demonstration projects: (1) Advancing the development of interchangeable biosimilar biological products and (2) improving the efficiency of biosimilar biological product development. As part of these demonstration projects, FDA proposes to engage stakeholders in a public meeting to review the progress of the demonstration projects and to solicit input of future priorities. An interim report would be issued prior to the public meeting, and a final summary report of outcomes from the pilot program would be posted on FDA's website. Within 12 months of completing the demonstration projects, FDA would publish a comprehensive strategy document outlining actions FDA will take to facilitate the development of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products. These enhancements are described in section II.E of the proposed BsUFA III Commitment Letter.
FDA is committed to ensuring the sustainability of BsUFA program resources and to enhancing the operational agility of the BsUFA program. FDA proposes to build on the financial enhancements included in BsUFA II and continue activities in BsUFA III to ensure optimal use of user fee resources and the alignment of staff to workload through the continued maturation and assessment of the Agency's resource capacity planning capability. This proposal would also include an independent assessment of the resource capacity planning capability. FDA proposes to continue activities to promote transparency of the use of financial resources in support of the BsUFA program through annual public meetings, publishing a 5-year financial plan along with annual updates, and additional reporting in the annual BsUFA Financial Report. These enhancements are described in section III of the proposed BsUFA III Commitment Letter.
FDA proposes to establish and progress a data and technology modernization strategy that provides FDA's strategic direction for current and future state data-driven regulatory initiatives. Additionally, FDA would advance the use of cloud-based technology to modernize the Electronic Submission Gateway to support greater data submission bandwidth and storage in the BsUFA program. These enhancements are described in section V of the proposed BsUFA III Commitment Letter.
The proposed BsUFA III agreement continues to build on the resource capacity planning capability established in BsUFA II and continues financial transparency initiatives. In addition, to manage financial risks in the program, BsUFA III proposes to enhance the operating reserve adjustment mechanism to provide for a defined minimum and maximum required amount of operating reserves. The proposed minimum amount is equivalent to 10 weeks of operating reserves and the maximum amount is equivalent to 21 weeks of available operating reserves to be maintained each year. The annual maximum
To implement the proposed enhancements for BsUFA III, funding for a cumulative total of 15 FTE staff is proposed to be phased in over the course of BsUFA III. The new funding would be phased in as follows:
The virtual public meeting will include a presentation by FDA and an industry panel. For members of the public who would like to make verbal comments on the proposed enhancements, there will be a public comment period at the end of the meeting (see instructions below). We will also provide an opportunity for individuals to submit written comments to the docket before and after the meeting.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than October 22, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Samantha Miller, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
A 60-day notice published in the
Interviews will be conducted virtually by a trained moderator and note taker, using a structured in-depth interview guide. Each interview is expected to last approximately one hour. It is also anticipated that interviewees may spend up to 15 minutes preparing for their interviews, for example by reviewing historical files. Signed consent forms regarding participation and the use of recording devices during the interview will be obtained from each participant prior to their participation in the interviews. The in-depth interview guide is available upon request.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Office on Women's Health, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Office on Women's Health (OWH) invites public and private sector organizations to apply to become an OWH Self-Measured Blood Pressure (SMBP) Partner. This ongoing partnership opportunity engages support from partner organizations to promote SMBP and encourages women to maintain healthy blood pressure levels at every age and stage of their lives. Through the OWH SMBP Partnership Program (“SMBP Program”), OWH seeks to increase knowledge and access to SMBP information and resources, as well as encourage organizations to address heart health disparities, prevent hypertension, promote self-measured blood pressure, and improve health equity on a community level. The SMBP Program will launch during the 2nd annual observance of National Women's Blood Pressure Awareness Week (NWBPAW), October 17-23, 2021. The SMBP Program will build on momentum generated by NWBPAW, which emphasizes the importance of blood pressure control and empowers women to improve their heart health through simple, everyday actions.
SMBP Program partners can be public and private organizations such as those at the state, local, county, and tribal levels, non-governmental organizations, non-profit organizations, businesses, academic organizations, organizations that impact health outcomes, philanthropic organizations, and tribal organizations that identify themselves as being aligned with or promoting the goals of the program.
Organizations that work in areas such as fitness, nutrition, housing, health education, and those working to improve health outcomes in women may apply. Social organizations that work with, or have access to large populations of women, organizations promoting women in sports, and child-care facilities may apply. Organizations that have a defibrillator accessible onsite and are willing to make a self-measured blood pressure cuff accessible onsite, and organizations that identify themselves as being aligned with, or promoting blood pressure control are encouraged to apply.
All organizations may apply.
Individuals are not eligible to become an SMBP Program partner.
Applicants shall submit a letter of interest and identify how they support or plan to support the SMBP Program goals. Applicants will be considered according to the organization's commitment to support those goals.
SMBP Program partners may receive recognition from OWH on
The following activities may be considered as an organization's
• Working to increase behaviors women can take to improve their heart health;
• Increasing access to resources and information regarding hypertension, cardiovascular disease, health risks associated with high blood pressure, and factors that increase the risk of high blood pressure;
• Increasing knowledge and utilization of SMBP activities (also referred to as “self-monitoring”);
• Increasing understanding of blood pressure needs and understanding of blood pressure numbers;
• Increasing number of women collaborating with healthcare providers with a focus on self-monitoring blood pressure control, with special consideration to adapt or modify activities to meet the needs of diverse, minority, underserved, and hard to reach populations;
• Expanding efforts to reach those disproportionately affected by high blood pressure, including Black or African American women, Latina women, Asian/Pacific Islander women, American Indian/Alaska Native women, women of reproductive age, women in rural communities, and women across the lifespan, to include those negatively affected by comorbidities and social determinants of health;
• Developing partnerships to promote SMBP across a variety of sectors, including business, community, academic, education, faith based, government, health care, media, public health, and technology;
• Partnering with national, state, tribal, or local volunteer organizations to provide education, training, or programs regarding health promotion, disease prevention, hypertension, SMBP, health disparities, health equity, and well-being; and/or
• Including information in their public facing materials about programs for hypertension, addressing SMBP, eliminating disparities, achieving health equity, and/or promoting well-being in communities.
Letters of interest to become an SMBP Program partner should be submitted to
Letters of interest can be submitted via email to
Keiva Nelson, Office on Women's Health, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 200 Independence Avenue SW, 712E, Washington, DC 20201; Email:
Organizations selected by OWH to be SMBP Program partners will sign a letter of understanding (LOU) with OWH outlining the terms and parameters of their support for the SMBP Program. Selection as an SMBP Program partner does not imply any federal endorsement of the collaborating organization's general policies, activities, or products.
Submission of a letter of interest does not guarantee acceptance as a SMBP Program partner.
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
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Extension of comment period.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is extending the public comment period for its request for information published August 23, 2021 on the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS). The request for information seeks public input on transforming the CRS program to better align with the current understanding of flood risk and flood risk approaches, and to incentivize communities not only to manage but also lower their flood risk through floodplain management initiatives.
Written comments on the request for information published at 86 FR 47128 (Aug. 23, 2021) may be submitted until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Friday, October 22, 2021.
Written comments on the request for information must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Rachel Sears, Supervisory Emergency Management Specialist, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
On August 23, 2021, FEMA published a Request for Information on the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System.
FEMA is extending the comment period to ensure all interested parties have sufficient opportunity to provide comments on the CRS program. For the details on this request, please see the RFI published at 86 FR 47128. FEMA will carefully consider all relevant comments received during the entire comment period, including comments received after September 22, 2021.
The purpose of the request for information is to seek input on the NFIP's CRS program. Individuals cannot apply for FEMA assistance by submitting a comment to this request for information. If you are an individual who has been impacted by a disaster and you are seeking assistance from FEMA, please visit
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice; correction.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is making a correction to the notice titled “Continuation of Documentation for Beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status Designations for El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Sudan, Honduras, and Nepal” that published in the
• You may contact Andria Strano, Acting Chief, Humanitarian Affairs Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, by mail at 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746, or by phone at 800-375-5283.
• For further information on TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS web page at
• If you have additional questions about TPS, please visit
• Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases may check Case Status Online, available
• Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this notice.
On September 10, 2021, DHS published a notice in the
USCIS is correcting the second sentence in the third paragraph in the Additional Notes section of the published notice. USCIS is correcting the sentence to state that the determination to terminate the 2011 designation of TPS for Haiti will not be implemented or enforced unless and until the district court's orders in
In FR 2021-19617, on page 50729 in the
The previously announced determination to terminate the 2011 designation of TPS for Haiti will not be implemented or enforced unless and until the district courts' orders in
On September 15, 2021, the Department of Justice lodged with the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan a proposed Sixth Modification of Consent Decree (“Sixth Modification”) in the lawsuit entitled
On May 23, 2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan approved and entered a Consent Decree that resolved specified claims asserted by the United States against Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership and eight affiliated entities (“Enbridge”) under the Clean Water Act and Oil Pollution Act arising from two separate 2010 oil spills resulting from failures of Enbridge oil transmission pipelines near Marshall, Michigan and Romeoville, Illinois. The complaint filed by the United States alleged that Enbridge's pipelines had unlawfully discharged oil into waters of the United States and sought civil penalties, recovery of removal costs, and injunctive relief. The Consent Decree established various requirements applicable to a network of 14 pipelines that comprise Enbridge's Lakehead System—including dig selection criteria governing excavation, repair or mitigation, and imposition of interim pressure restrictions for various features, such as dents, corrosion and cracks, that are detected through In-Line Inspections (“ILI”) of such pipelines. Because certain of these dig selection criteria are based in part on the Established Maximum Operating Pressure (“EMOP”) applicable to the pipeline location where the particular feature is located, the Consent Decree incorporated by reference EMOP values established for each of the pipelines subject to the Consent Decree.
The proposed Sixth Modification would revise certain EMOP values to reflect new information developed during an MOP Verification Project undertaken between 2015 and December of 2020. In addition to revising EMOP values for purposes of implementing dig selection criteria, the proposed Sixth Modification establishes new provisions directly restricting operating pressures on pipelines subject to the Consent Decree, including: (1) An explicit prohibition on exceeding EMOP values except in limited circumstances involving surges or other variations from normal pipeline operations, and (2) new reporting requirements and stipulated penalty provisions relating to pipeline operating pressure provisions. Finally, in certain cases where the MOP Verification Project developed new information regarding pipe wall thickness at particular pipeline locations, the proposed Sixth Modification would require Enbridge to re-evaluate features and identify any additional features that meet Consent Decree dig selection criteria when revised pipe wall thickness information is taken into consideration.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Sixth Modification of Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Sixth Modification of Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
In requesting a paper copy, please enclose a check or money order for $7.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
The Members of the National Council on Disability (NCD) will hold a quarterly business meeting on Thursday, October 7, 2021, 12:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
This meeting will occur via Zoom videoconference. Registration is not required. Interested parties are encouraged to join the meeting in an attendee status by Zoom Desktop Client, Mobile App, or Telephone to dial-in. Updated information is available on
To join the Council Meeting by telephone, dial one of the preferred numbers listed. The following numbers are (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): (669) 900-6833; (408) 638-0968; (312) 626-6799; (346) 248-7799; (253) 215-8782; (646) 876-9923; or (301) 715-8592. You will be prompted to enter the meeting ID 990-5149-5407 and passcode 151964. International numbers are also available:
In the event of audio disruption or failure, attendees can follow the meeting by accessing the Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) link provided. CART is text-only translation that occurs real time during the meeting and is not an exact transcript.
Following welcome remarks and introductions, FY22 policy project updates will be given, including a presentation on NCD's forthcoming Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Medicaid Dental Reimbursement Project. Following FY22 project updates, the Chairman, Executive Director, and Executive Committee will provide reports. Following those reports, there will be a community advocacy presentation; followed by an update on follow-up policy themes projects; legislative and public affairs updates; a public comment session; an NCD training for Council Members on special government employee pay policy; and any unfinished business before adjournment.
Via “Hand Raise” on Zoom; Review of Written Submissions
Nicholas Sabula, Public Affairs Specialist, NCD, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (V), or
Due to last-minute confirmations or cancellations, NCD may substitute items without advance public notice.
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice; request for comment.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, is announcing an opportunity for public comment on a new proposed collection of information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit comments on or before: November 22, 2021.
Send comments to Connie Bodner, Ph.D., Director of Grants Policy and Management, Office of Grants Policy and Management, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Bodner can be reached by telephone: 202-653-4636, or by email at
Requests for additional information should be directed to Amira Boland, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20006, 202-881-9453, via email to
Under the 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. “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 requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Whether seeking a loan, Social Security benefits, veterans benefits, or other services provided by the Federal Government, individuals and businesses expect Government customer services to be efficient and intuitive, just like services from leading private-sector organizations. Yet the 2016 American Consumer Satisfaction Index and the 2017 Forrester Federal Customer Experience Index show that, on average, Government services lag nine percentage points behind the private sector.
A modern, streamlined and responsive customer experience means: Raising government-wide customer experience to the average of the private sector service industry; developing indicators for high-impact Federal programs to monitor progress towards excellent customer experience and mature digital services; and providing the structure (including increasing transparency) and resources to ensure customer experience is a focal point for agency leadership. To support this, OMB Circular A-11 Section 280 established government-wide standards for mature customer experience organizations in government and measurement. To enable Federal programs to deliver the experience taxpayers deserve, they must undertake three general categories of activities: conduct ongoing customer research, gather and share customer feedback, and test services and digital products.
These data collection efforts may be either qualitative or quantitative in nature or may consist of mixed methods. Additionally, data may be collected via a variety of means, including but not limited to electronic or social media, direct or indirect observation (
The results of the data collected will be used to improve the delivery of Federal services and programs. It will include the creation of personas, customer journey maps, and reports and summaries of customer feedback data and user insights. It will also provide government-wide data on customer experience that can be displayed on performance.gov to help build transparency and accountability of Federal programs to the customers they serve.
IMLS will collect this information by electronic means when possible, as well as by mail, telephone, technical discussions, and in-person interviews. IMLS may also utilize observational techniques to collect this information.
•
•
•
•
•
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on this proposed information collection. The information collection is entitled, “NRC Insider Threat Program for Licensees and Others Requiring Access to Classified Information.”
Submit comments by November 22, 2021. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0132 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; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
Dated: September 17, 2021.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
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 September 16, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Asset Management Advisory Committee (“AMAC”) will hold a public meeting on Monday, September 27, 2021 at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be conducted by remote means. Members of the public may watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's website at
The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and will be open to the public by webcast on the Commission's website at
On September 13, 2021, the Commission issued notice of the meeting (Release No. 34-92966), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to AMAC. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
The meeting will include a discussion of matters in the asset management industry relating to: The Private Investments Subcommittee, including its potential recommendations; and the Evolution of Advice and the Small Advisers and Small Funds Subcommittees, including panel discussions.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to decommission the Exchange's quote removal Kill Switch functionality at Options 3, Section 17.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 17 to decommission the Exchange's quote removal Kill Switch functionality, which is an optional tool that allows Market Makers to initiate a message
Due to the lack of demand for the quote removal Kill Switch by Market Makers, the Exchange proposes to decommission this optional tool by the end of Q4 2021.
In addition, all Members, including Market Makers, may contact the Exchange's market operations staff to request that the Exchange cancel any of their existing bids, offers, or orders in any series of options.
To effect the decommissioning of the quote removal Kill Switch, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 17 by eliminating all references to quote cancellation within this Rule.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will affect the protection of investors or the public interest or the maintenance of a fair and orderly market because no Market Makers have used the quote removal Kill Switch risk control in 2021. In addition, the Exchange notes that the use of this tool is completely optional, and the Exchange will continue to offer Market Makers similar risk management tools such as the SQF mass quote purge functionality. As discussed above, the Exchange has found that Market Makers use the SQF purge functionality much more frequently than the quote removal Kill Switch to pull their quotes from the market. Furthermore, Market Makers will retain the ability to contact market operations staff to manually purge their quotes from the market. In addition, the Exchange will continue to implement mandatory System-enforced risk mechanisms that automatically remove quotes for the Market Maker once certain pre-set thresholds or conditions are met (
Also, the Exchange believes that the low usage rate for the quote removal Kill Switch does not warrant the continuous resources necessary for System support of such tools. As a result, the Exchange also believes that the proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by allowing the Exchange to reallocate System capacity and resources currently used to maintain this functionality to the development and maintenance of other business initiatives and risk management products.
As noted above, the Exchange will retain the ability for Members to utilize Kill Switch to cancel orders and prevent new order submission. The Exchange does not believe that decommissioning the quote removal portion of the Kill Switch tool for Market Makers is unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers are professional traders with their own risk settings, and have more sophisticated infrastructures than most other market participants. Furthermore, as discussed above, the Exchange has determined that Market Makers currently use the mass purge functionality on SQF to pull their quotes from the market instead of using the quote removal Kill Switch tool to achieve the same result.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to decommission a risk management tool that is rarely, if ever, used on the Exchange. As discussed above, Market Makers currently have a variety of similar tools like the quote removal Kill Switch that allow them to pull their quotes from the market and inhibit the entry of new quotes, including the mass quote purge functionality on SQF that the Exchange has found Market Makers use much more frequently than the quote removal Kill Switch to achieve the same result.
As noted above, the Exchange will retain the ability for Members to utilize Kill Switch to cancel orders and prevent new order submission. The Exchange does not believe that decommissioning the quote removal portion of the Kill Switch tool for Market Makers will impose an undue burden on competition because Market Makers are professional traders with their own risk settings, and have more sophisticated infrastructures than most other market participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to decommission the Exchange's quote removal Kill Switch functionality at Options 3, Section 17.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 17 to decommission the Exchange's quote removal Kill Switch functionality, which is an optional tool that allows Market Makers
Due to the lack of demand for the quote removal Kill Switch by Market Makers, the Exchange proposes to decommission this optional tool by the end of Q4 2021.
In addition, all Phlx members, including Market Makers, may contact the Exchange's market operations staff to request that the Exchange cancel any of their existing bids, offers, or orders in any series of options.
To effect the decommissioning of the quote removal Kill Switch, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 17 by eliminating all references to quote removal within this Rule. In connection with this change, the Exchange will also renumber current Options 3, Section 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) as Options 3, Section 17(a)(1) and (a)(2), respectively.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will affect the protection of investors or the public interest or the maintenance of a fair and orderly market because no Market Makers have used the quote removal Kill Switch risk control in 2021. In addition, the Exchange notes that the use of this tool is completely optional, and the Exchange will continue to offer Market Makers similar risk management tools such as the SQF mass quote purge functionality. As discussed above, the Exchange has found that Market Makers use the SQF purge functionality much more frequently than the quote removal Kill Switch to pull their quotes from the market. Furthermore, Market Makers will retain the ability to contact market operations staff to manually purge their quotes from the market. In addition, the Exchange will continue to implement mandatory System-enforced risk mechanisms that automatically remove quotes for the Market Maker once certain pre-set thresholds or conditions are met (
Also, the Exchange believes that the low usage rate for the quote removal Kill Switch does not warrant the continuous resources necessary for System support of such tools. As a result, the Exchange also believes that the proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by allowing the Exchange to reallocate System capacity and resources currently used to maintain this functionality to the development and maintenance of other business initiatives and risk management products.
As noted above, the Exchange will retain the ability for Phlx members to utilize Kill Switch to cancel orders and prevent new order submission. The Exchange does not believe that decommissioning the quote removal portion of the Kill Switch tool for Market Makers is unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers are professional traders with their own risk settings, and have more sophisticated infrastructures than most other market participants. Furthermore, as discussed above, the Exchange has determined that Market Makers currently use the mass purge functionality on SQF to pull their quotes from the market instead of using the quote removal Kill Switch tool to achieve the same result.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to decommission a risk management tool that is rarely, if ever, used on the Exchange. As discussed above, Market Makers currently have a variety of similar tools like the quote removal Kill Switch that allow them to pull their quotes from the market and inhibit the entry of new quotes, including the mass quote purge functionality on SQF that the Exchange has found Market Makers use much more frequently than the quote removal Kill Switch to achieve the same result.
As noted above, the Exchange will retain the ability for Phlx members to utilize Kill Switch to cancel orders and prevent new order submission. The Exchange does not believe that decommissioning the quote removal portion of the Kill Switch tool for Market Makers will impose an undue burden on competition because Market Makers are professional traders with their own risk settings, and have more sophisticated infrastructures than most other market participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 20, 2021, MIAX PEARL, LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation ATS sets forth a regulatory regime for “alternative trading systems” (“ATSs”), which are entities that carry out exchange functions but are not required to register as national securities exchanges under the Act. In lieu of exchange registration, an ATS can instead opt to register with the Commission as a broker-dealer and, as a condition to not having to register as an exchange, must instead comply with Regulation ATS. Rule 303 of Regulation ATS (17 CFR 242.303) describes the record preservation requirements for ATSs. Rule 303 also describes how such
The information contained in the records required to be preserved by Rule 303 will be used by examiners and other representatives of the Commission, state securities regulatory authorities, and the self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) to ensure that ATSs are in compliance with Regulation ATS as well as other applicable rules and regulations. Without the data required by the Rule, regulators would be limited in their ability to comply with their statutory obligations, provide for the protection of investors, and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.
Respondents consist of ATSs that choose to register as broker-dealers and comply with the requirements of Regulation ATS. There are currently 94 respondents. The Commission believes that the average ongoing hourly burden for a respondent to comply with the baseline record preservation requirements under Rule 303 is approximately 15 hours per year. We thus estimate that the average aggregate ongoing burden to comply with the baseline Rule 303 record preservation requirements is approximately 1,410 hours per year. (94 ATSs × 15 hours = 1,410 hours) In addition, there are currently two ATSs that transact in both NMS stock and non-NMS stock on their ATSs. These two ATSs have a slightly greater burden because they have to keep both Form ATS and Form ATS-N and related documents (
Compliance with Rule 303 is mandatory. The information required by Rule 303 is available only for the examination of the Commission staff, state securities authorities and the SROs. Subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 522 (“FOIA”), and the Commission's rules thereunder (17 CFR 200.80(b)(4)(iii)), the Commission does not generally publish or make available information contained in any reports, summaries, analyses, letters, or memoranda arising out of, in anticipation of, or in connection with an examination or inspection of the books and records of any person or any other investigation.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to provide historical Open-Close Report data for free by amending the fees for the Open-Close Report to: (i) Respond to ad hoc requests for end-of-day data free of charge; and (ii) provide mid-month subscribers data for the entire month in which they subscribe.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange recently adopted a new data product for options known as the Open-Close Report,
By way of background, the Exchange offers two versions of the Open-Close Report, an end-of-day summary and intra-day report.
Members and non-Members may purchase the Open-Close Report on a monthly basis. The Exchange currently assess a monthly fee of $600 per month for subscribing to the end-of-day summary Open-Close Report and $2,000 per month for subscribing to the intra-day Open-Close Report. For mid-month subscriptions, new subscribers are currently charged for the full calendar month for which they subscribe and will be provided Open-Close Report data for each trading day of the calendar month from the day on which they subscribed.
The Exchange now proposes to provide Members and Non-Members who request on an ad hoc basis historical end-of-day Open-Close Report data free of charge.
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) and Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) both assess $400 for historical end-of-day data per request per month.
The Exchange also proposes to make the historical monthly data available fifteen (15) days after the end of the month for which it is requested. The Exchange proposes this delay because it is making historical end-of-day Open-Close Report data free of charge and seeks to not encourage subscribers to request historical end-of-day Open-Close Report data over a paid subscription.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the data range of Open-Close Report data it provides to mid-month subscribers. As noted above, the Exchange currently charges new mid-month subscribers for the full calendar month for which they subscribe, but only provides Open-Close Report data for each trading day of the calendar month from the day on which they subscribed. The Exchange now proposes to provide new mid-month subscribers data for each trading day of the calendar month prior to the day on which they subscribe. In other words, those that subscribe mid-month will be provided Open-Close Data retroactively for each trading day of the month in which they subscribed and prospectively for each trading day for the remainder of that calendar month pursuant to either the end-of-day or intra-day subscription they chose. This is identical to how the Exchange provides data to mid-month subscribers of the Exchange's Liquidity Taker Event report.
The Exchange intends to provide historical Open-Close Report data for free pursuant this proposal immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. Particularly, the Open-Close Report further broadens the availability of U.S. option market data to investors consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS. The data product also promotes increased transparency through the dissemination of the Open-Close Report. Particularly, information regarding opening and closing activity across different option series during the trading day may indicate investor sentiment, which may allow market participants to make better informed trading decisions throughout the day. Subscribers to the data may also be able to enhance their ability to analyze option trade and volume data and create and test trading models and analytical strategies. The Exchange believes the Open-Close Report provides a valuable tool that subscribers can use to gain comprehensive insight into the trading activity in a particular series, but also emphasizes such data is not necessary for trading. Moreover, other exchanges offer a similar data product.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade options. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 15% of the market share and currently the Exchange represents only approximately 3.57% of the market share.
The Exchange believes its proposal to provide Open-Close data in response to ad hoc request for end-of-day data free of charge is reasonable as the proposed rate is lower than the fees assessed by other exchanges that provide data in response to ad hoc request for their similar data products.
The Exchange also believes its proposal to amend the fees for the Open-Close Report to: (i) Provide historical end-of-day data free of charge and (ii) provide mid-month subscribers data for the entire month in which they subscribe, is reasonable as it would further support its recent introduction of the Open-Close Report, which is designed to aid investors by providing insight into trading on the Exchange. Providing market data, such as the Open-Close Report, is also a means by which exchanges compete to attract business. Subscribers that receive end-of-day Open-Close data for free in response to an ad hoc request may use such data to evaluate the usefulness of the Exchange's Open-Close Report and decide, based on that data, whether to subscribe to the Open-Close Report on a monthly basis. In addition, providing new mid-month subscribers data for the entire calendar month would further enhance the value of the Open-Close Report and encourage mid-month subscriptions market participants that seek to subscribe to the Open-Close
As noted above, a wide variety of market participants to subscribe to the Open-Close Report, including but not limited to individual customers, buy-side investors and investment banks. The Exchange reiterates that the decision as to whether or not to subscribe to the Open-Close Report is entirely optional for all potential subscribers. Indeed, no market participant is required to subscribe to the Open-Close Report, and the Exchange is not required to make the Open-Close Report available to all investors. Rather, the Exchange is voluntarily making additional Open-Close Report data available via ad hoc requests for end-of-day data and to mid-month subscribers under this proposal at the request of customers, and market participants may choose to receive this data based on their own business needs. Potential subscribe to or request the data at any time if they believe it to be valuable or may decline to subscribe such data.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposal will promote competition by permitting the Exchange to enhance the value of a data product that is similar to those offered by other competitor options exchanges.
Furthermore, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price the Open-Close Report is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar data products to their customers. As discussed, there are currently a number of similar products available to market participants and investors. At least eight other U.S. options exchanges offer a market data product that is substantially similar to the Open-Close Report, which the Exchange must consider in its pricing discipline in order to compete for the market data.
The Exchange also does not believe the proposal would cause any unnecessary or in appropriate burden on intermarket competition as other exchanges are free to introduce their own comparable data product and lower their prices to better compete with the Exchange's offering. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition. Particularly, the proposal would apply uniformly to any market participant, in that it does not differentiate between subscribers to the Open-Close Report. The proposal is modest and would allow any interested Member or non-Member to subscribe to or request such data based on their business needs.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to provide historical Open-Close Report data for free by amending the fees for the Open-Close Report to: (i) Respond to ad hoc requests for end-of-day data free of charge; and (ii) provide mid-month subscribers data for the entire month in which they subscribe.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange recently adopted a new data product for options known as the Open-Close Report,
By way of background, the Exchange offers two versions of the Open-Close Report, an end-of-day summary and intra-day report.
Members and non-Members may purchase the Open-Close Report on a monthly basis. The Exchange currently assess a monthly fee of $600 per month for subscribing to the end-of-day summary Open-Close Report and $2,000 per month for subscribing to the intra-day Open-Close Report. For mid-month subscriptions, new subscribers are currently charged for the full calendar month for which they subscribe and will be provided Open-Close Report data for each trading day of the calendar month from the day on which they subscribed.
The Exchange now proposes to provide Members and Non-Members who request on an ad hoc basis historical end-of-day Open-Close Report data free of charge.
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) and Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) both assess $400 for historical end-of-day data per request per month.
The Exchange also proposes to make the historical monthly data available fifteen (15) days after the end of the month for which it is requested. The Exchange proposes this delay because it is making historical end-of-day Open-Close Report data free of charge and seeks to not encourage subscribers to request historical end-of-day Open-Close Report data over a paid subscription.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the data range of Open-Close Report data it provides to mid-month subscribers. As noted above, the Exchange currently charges new mid-month subscribers for the full calendar month for which they subscribe, but only provides Open-Close Report data for each trading day of the calendar month from the day on which they subscribed. The Exchange now proposes to provide new mid-month subscribers data for each trading day of the calendar month prior to the day on which they subscribe. In other words, those that subscribe mid-month will be provided Open-Close Data retroactively for each trading day of the month in which they subscribed and prospectively for each trading day for the remainder of that calendar month pursuant to either the end-of-day or intra-day subscription they chose. This is identical to how the Exchange provides data to mid-month subscribers of the Exchange's Liquidity Taker Event report.
The Exchange intends to provide historical Open-Close Report data for free pursuant this proposal immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. Particularly, the Open-Close Report further broadens the availability of U.S. option market data to investors consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS. The data product also promotes increased transparency through the dissemination of the Open-Close Report. Particularly, information regarding opening and closing activity across different option series during the trading day may indicate investor sentiment, which may allow market participants to make better informed trading decisions throughout the day. Subscribers to the data may also be able to enhance their ability to analyze option trade and volume data and create and test trading models and analytical strategies. The Exchange believes the Open-Close Report provides a valuable tool that subscribers can use to gain comprehensive insight into the trading activity in a particular series, but also emphasizes such data is not necessary for trading. Moreover, other exchanges offer a similar data product.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade options. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 15% of the market share and currently the Exchange represents only approximately 6.23% of the market share.
The Exchange believes its proposal to provide Open-Close data in response to ad hoc request for end-of-day data free of charge is reasonable as the proposed rate is lower than the fees assessed by other exchanges that provide data in response to ad hoc request for their similar data products.
The Exchange also believes its proposal to amend the fees for the Open-Close Report to: (i) Provide historical end-of-day data free of charge and (ii) provide mid-month subscribers data for the entire month in which they subscribe, is reasonable as it would further support its recent introduction of the Open-Close Report, which is designed to aid investors by providing insight into trading on the Exchange. Providing market data, such as the Open-Close Report, is also a means by which exchanges compete to attract business. Subscribers that receive end-of-day Open-Close data for free in response to an ad hoc request may use such data to evaluate the usefulness of the Exchange's Open-Close Report and decide, based on that data, whether to subscribe to the Open-Close Report on a monthly basis. In addition, providing new mid-month subscribers data for the entire calendar month would further enhance the value of the Open-Close Report and encourage mid-month subscriptions market participants that seek to subscribe to the Open-Close Report not having to wait to the first of the next month to subscribe and receive a full month of Open-Close Report Data for the current monthly fee. To the extent that the Exchange is successful in attracting subscribers for the Open-Close Report through this proposal, it may earn trading revenues and further enhance the value of its data products. The Exchange also believes it proposal to make historical end-of-day Open-Close Report data on a delayed basis is a reasonable means to not encourage subscribers to request historical end-of-day Open-Close Report data over a paid subscription. If the market deems the proposal to be unfair or inequitable, firms can diminish or discontinue their use of the data and/or avail themselves of similar products offered by other exchanges.
As noted above, a wide variety of market participants to subscribe to the Open-Close Report, including but not limited to individual customers, buy-side investors and investment banks. The Exchange reiterates that the decision as to whether or not to subscribe to the Open-Close Report is entirely optional for all potential subscribers. Indeed, no market participant is required to subscribe to the Open-Close Report, and the Exchange is not required to make the Open-Close Report available to all investors. Rather, the Exchange is voluntarily making additional Open-Close Report data available via ad hoc requests for end-of-day data and to mid-month subscribers under this proposal at the request of customers, and market participants may choose to receive this data based on their own business needs. Potential subscribe to or request the data at any time if they believe it to be valuable or may decline to subscribe such data.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposal will promote competition by permitting the Exchange to enhance the value of a data product that is similar to those offered by other competitor options exchanges.
Furthermore, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price the Open-Close Report is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar data products to their customers. As discussed, there are currently a number of similar products available to market participants and investors. At least eight other U.S. options exchanges offer a market data product that is substantially similar to the Open-Close Report, which the Exchange must consider in its pricing discipline in order to compete for the market data.
The Exchange also does not believe the proposal would cause any unnecessary or in appropriate burden on intermarket competition as other exchanges are free to introduce their own comparable data product and lower their prices to better compete with the Exchange's offering. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition. Particularly, the proposal would apply uniformly to any market participant, in that it does not differentiate between subscribers to the Open-Close Report. The proposal is modest and would allow any interested Member or non-Member to subscribe to or request such data based on their business needs.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”),
Section 109(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act directs the PCAOB to establish a budget for each fiscal year in accordance with the PCAOB's internal procedures, subject to approval by the Commission. Rule 190 of Regulation P facilitates the Commission's review and approval of PCAOB budgets and annual accounting support fees.
During 2021, the PCAOB determined that expenses related to the engagement of outside counsel would cause its
The Commission directs the PCAOB to keep the Commission, through staff in its Office of the Chief Accountant, apprised each month of monthly legal expenses incurred and paid through the end of its fiscal year 2021. Separately, the Commission directs that the PCAOB implement policies and procedures to ensure additional funds will not be required for spending on outside counsel for the 2021 fiscal year beyond those approved in this Order. The Commission also directs the PCAOB to inform the Commission of all of the steps it will take to reduce its current and future reliance on outside counsel.
The Commission has determined that the PCAOB's 2021 supplemental budget is consistent with Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Accordingly,
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule filing is to amend IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) to provide that a reserve order
The proposed changes are designed to increase displayed liquidity on the Exchange (potentially at prices better than the NBBO),
IEX, like other equities exchanges,
IEX recently implemented a rule change that provides for the option to display odd lot size orders, including allowing them to aggregate to form a protected quotation.
IEX proposes to amend IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) to: (i) Allow reserve orders to be submitted with an odd lot sized display portion; and (ii) allow Members to elect that the initial and replenishment display quantity for the reserve order will be randomly determined by the System within a range specified by the Member. As described below, IEX believes this proposal, which combines order types and functionality previously considered by the Commission, will encourage the posting of more displayed liquidity on the Exchange in a manner that benefits all market participants.
IEX proposes to modify its reserve order type to allow Members to submit a reserve order with an odd lot size display quantity, in addition to the current functionality which allows Members to submit a reserve order with either a round or mixed lot size display quantity.
As proposed, odd lot size display quantity reserve orders (“Displayed Odd Lot Reserve orders”) would function much like a round or mixed lot size display quantity reserve order, except that the display quantity would only replenish from the reserve quantity when the displayed portion of the order is decremented to zero shares, as opposed to round and mixed lot size display quantity reserve orders, which would continue to replenish the display quantity whenever they decrement to less than a round lot. IEX believes that replenishing a Displayed Odd Lot Reserve order only when the display quantity has been fully exhausted is the most reasonable and workable approach. As a threshold matter, the display quantity of a Displayed Odd Lot Reserve order by definition will always be less than a round lot and will vary based on the Member instructed displayed quantity and can be as low as one share. Therefore, the trigger for replenishment cannot be a quantity that is the same for all orders unless it is when the displayed quantity decrements to zero.
IEX notes that it also considered having Displayed Odd Lot Reserve orders replenish anytime one or more share of the displayed portion was executed, but decided against it for the following reasons. First, as a practical matter, Displayed Odd Lot Reserve orders will be far less useful to Members if any partial executions of the display portion trigger a replenishment, resulting in the display portion receiving a new time stamp and being prioritized behind all other existing displayed orders at that price. Second, as discussed below, a Displayed Odd Lot Reserve order would be eligible for optional random replenishment, which means the next time the display quantity of the order replenishes, it could be randomly set at a value lower than the prior display quantity, and IEX seeks to avoid this confusing and illogical outcome. Third, IEX believes that having a Displayed Odd Lot Reserve Order replenish any time there is a partial execution of the displayed portion of the order could increase the likelihood of adverse selection through information leakage of the presence of a larger non-displayed reserve portion of the order. IEX notes that the Commission made the same determination when it approved a 2018 rule filing by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) that changed NYSE's reserve order replenishment trigger from replenishing after any execution of a portion of the displayed quantity to only replenishing when the display quantity decrements to less than a round lot.
IEX believes that providing for Displayed Odd Lot Reserve orders will incentivize the posting of more displayed liquidity on IEX, and the corresponding opportunity for market participants to interact with displayed liquidity. In this regard, IEX believes that the increasing prevalence of high-priced securities (including many securities that trade for more than $1,000 per share)
Furthermore, the Commission has noted that almost half of all on-exchange trades are odd lot sized, and about 40% of those odd lot trades occur at prices better than the NBBO.
Additionally, based on informal discussions with IEX Members, the Exchange believes that use of reserve orders would increase in high priced securities if the displayed portion of the reserve order could be entered in an odd lot quantity.
IEX notes that its proposal for Displayed Odd Lot Reserve orders is not novel, in that all four of the Cboe equities exchanges allow a reserve order to be submitted with a user instructed display quantity of less than one round lot.
IEX proposes to offer Members the option to elect that the initial and each replenishment display quantity for the reserve order will be randomly determined by the System within a range specified by the Member. IEX proposes to add the defined term of “Max Floor” to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2), to specify the base display quantity for all reserve orders. As proposed, a Member can submit a reserve order with a Max Floor in an odd lot quantity, as well as in a quantity equal to or greater than a round lot as provided for under current rules. Further, IEX proposes that if the reserve order's Max Floor is either an odd lot or a round lot multiple, the Member may include an instruction that the reserve order's display quantity be randomly replenished (as discussed below, random replenishment would not be available to reserve orders with a Max Floor of either a single round lot or a mixed lot).
As proposed, Members may attach an optional random replenishment instruction (the “Display Range”) to any reserve order with a Max Floor of either an odd lot or a round lot multiple. If the Member includes a Display Range with a reserve order, the reserve order's display quantities (both upon initial posting and upon any subsequent replenishments) would be randomly determined by the System within a replenishment range specified by the Member. Specifically, the Member would specify a Display Range and a Max Floor. The System would then randomly select the number of shares it will use to replenish the display quantity in the following ways (depending upon the Max Floor of the Order):
• If the reserve order's Max Floor equals a round lot multiple, the Member would select a Display Range in a round lot or multiple thereof that is less than the Max Floor. The System would then use the Max Floor and Display Range to determine the initial and replenishment displayed quantity each time the order is subject to replenishment by randomly selecting a round lot number of shares that is between the Max Floor minus the Display Range and the Max Floor plus the Display Range.
• If the reserve order's Max Floor is less than one round lot, the Member would select a Display Range of one or more shares that is less than the Max Floor. The System would then use the Max Floor and Display Range to determine the initial and replenishment displayed quantity each time the order is subject to replenishment by randomly selecting a number of shares that is between the Max Floor minus the Display Range and the Max Floor plus the Display Range (provided that if the Max Floor plus the Display Range equals a round lot or greater, the high end of the Display Range will be one share less than a round lot).
As proposed, Members could still elect to have their reserve orders employ the current, fixed replenishment, functionality. In order to use fixed replenishment, a Member would submit a reserve order with a Max Floor, but without a Display Range. With fixed replenishment, the display quantity will be equal to the Max Floor both when the order first posts to the Order Book and any time the display quantity is replenished from the reserve (
Random replenishment for reserve orders is an optional additional tool to assist Members in achieving the general goal of reserve orders, which is to display less than the full size of the order to avoid leaking information regarding the presence of a large resting reserve order.
IEX is not proposing to offer random replenishment for reserve orders with a Max Floor of a single round lot because the random replenishment functionality would not work with a Max Floor of one round lot. Specifically, as noted above, when a Member selects random replenishment for a reserve order, the Member must submit the order with a Display Range that is less than the Max Floor. Thus, if a reserve order's Max Floor is one round lot, the Display Range must be zero, so the reserve order will always replenish using only the Max Floor, rendering random replenishment inoperable. Therefore, reserve orders with a Max Floor equal to one round lot will only be able to use the current fixed replenishment functionality.
Additionally, IEX is not proposing to offer random replenishment for reserve orders with a Max Floor that is a mixed lot because implementation would involve technical complexity. From informal discussions with Members, IEX determined there was little interest in having the option of random replenishment for a displayed mixed lot
IEX notes that the proposed random replenishment functionality for reserve orders with a Max Floor that is a round lot multiple is substantially similar to that of several other equity exchanges that offer random replenishment for reserve orders.
The following examples demonstrate the proposed odd lot fixed and random replenishment functionality:
• Member submits a reserve order to buy 200 shares of XYZ with a Max Floor of 20 and no Display Range.
• The order does not execute upon entry and posts to the Order Book with a display quantity of 20 shares and a reserve quantity of 180 shares.
• An inbound order to sell 10 shares of XYZ is entered into the System and executes against 10 shares of the displayed quantity. The reserve order has a displayed portion of 10 shares and a reserve quantity of 180 shares. Because the displayed portion did not decrement to zero shares, it does not get replenished.
• A second inbound market order to sell 10 shares of XYX is entered into the System and executes against the remaining displayed quantity, decrementing it zero shares.
• The System replenishes the display quantity to 20 shares (the Max Floor), leaving a reserve quantity of 160 shares.
• Member submits a reserve order to buy 2000 shares of XYZ with a Max Floor of 400 and a Display Range of 200.
• The order does not execute on entry, and the System uses the Max Floor and the Display Range to generate a replenishment range of either 200, 300, 400, 500, or 600 shares from which the System will randomly select the initial replenishment quantity. The System randomly selects 300 as the initial replenishment quantity, meaning the reserve order's initial display quantity will be 300 shares, with a reserve quantity of 1,700 shares.
• An incoming order to sell 250 shares matches with the resting reserve order's display quantity, leaving 50 shares in the display quantity (and 1,700 in the reserve quantity).
• Because the Max Floor is at least one round lot, the reserve order replenishes when the display quantity decrements to less than one round lot, so the System again randomly selects a replenishment quantity from the replenishment range of either 200, 300, 400, 500, or 600 shares. The System randomly selects 600 as the next replenishment quantity, meaning the display quantity will be replenished to 600 shares, with 550 shares decremented from the reserve quantity, which will now be 1,150 shares.
• Member submits a reserve order to buy 200 shares with a Max Floor of 50 and a Display Range of 3.
• The order does not execute on entry, and the System generates a replenishment range of either 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, or 53 from which the System will randomly select the replenishment quantity. The System randomly selects 48 as the initial replenishment quantity, meaning the displayed quantity will be 48 shares, with the remaining 152 shares in the reserve quantity.
• An incoming order to sell 48 shares matches with the resting reserve order's displayed portion, leaving 0 shares in the display quantity (and 152 shares in the reserve quantity).
• Because the Max Floor is an odd lot, and the display quantity decremented to zero shares, the reserve order replenishes the display quantity, so the System again randomly selects a replenishment quantity from the replenishment range of either 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, or 53 shares. The System randomly selects 53 as the next replenishment quantity, meaning the display quantity will be replenished to 53 shares, with 53 shares decremented from the reserve quantity, which will now be 99 shares.
IEX is also proposing to make the following conforming changes to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2). First, IEX proposes to delete current subparagraph (H), which describes how a displayed portion of a reserve order retains its displayed status and priority if it decrements to an odd lot, because it is rendered redundant by the introduction of displayed quantity odd lot reserve orders. Second, IEX proposes to renumber current subparagraphs (A) to (G) of the rule as subparagraphs (B) to (H) to incorporate the addition of new introductory subparagraph (A).
The following is a list of the specific proposed changes to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2):
• Modify any references in the rule to a “refresh” of the display quantity to the more technically accurate term “replenish,” which reflects the manner in which the System replenishes the displayed portion of a reserve order with shares taken from the non-displayed portion.
• Modify the second sentence of IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) to add language stating that the display quantity “may be a fixed or random number of shares; and an odd, mixed, or round lot quantity,” and delete the language stating that User provided display quantity “must be equal to or greater than a round lot; the System will reject a reserve order with a User instructed display quantity less than a round lot.”
• Modify the fourth sentence of IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) to add language specifying that the User instructed display quantity may be determined by “fixed or random replenishment.”
• Add a new seventh sentence of IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) stating that to enter a reserve order, a User must specify a base display quantity (“Max Floor”) and may enter a replenishment value as described in subparagraph (A) of IEX Rule 11.190(b).
• Modify the eighth sentence of IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) (formerly the seventh sentence) to add language clarifying that a reserve order with a Max Floor of a
• Add a new ninth sentence of IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) stating that a reserve order with a Max Floor of less than one round lot (an odd lot), will replenish its displayed portion when the displayed portion is decremented to zero shares, and add language stating that the reserve order will replenish its displayed portion pursuant to one of the replenishment processes set forth in the newly added subparagraph (A) of the rule.
• Add to the end of the eleventh sentence of IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) (formerly the ninth sentence) the language that a reserve order “has the following attributes:” set forth in the subsequent subparagraphs.
• Add new subsection (A) to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) (“Replenishment Options”) that reads: “The following replenishment options determine the size of the displayed quantity for any reserve order that does not fully execute on entry.
• Add new subsection (A)(i) to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) (“Random Replenishment”) that sets forth new the random replenishment functionality, as detailed in this filing.
• Add new subsection (A)(i)(a) to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) (“Random Replenishment”) that sets forth new the random replenishment functionality for reserve orders with a Max Floor equal to a round lot multiple, which is detailed in this filing.
• Add new subsection (A)(i)(b) to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) (“Random Replenishment”) that sets forth new the random replenishment functionality for reserve orders with a Max Floor equal to less than one round lot, which is detailed in this filing.
• Add new subsection (A)(ii) to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) (“Fixed Replenishment”) that sets forth retention of the current replenishment functionality for all orders for which random replenishment has not been selected, as detailed in this filing.
• Renumber current subparagraphs (A) to (G) of current IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) to subparagraphs (B) to (H).
• Remove current subparagraph (H) of current IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2).
• Modify Supplementary Material .01 (“Reserve Orders”) as follows: (i) In the first sentence, add “on entry” after the words “if a reserve order is not fully executed” for clarity; (ii) in the same sentence, remove the words “for the User instructed” that describe the display quantity and replace them with the words “based on the replenishment options sets forth in paragraph (b)(2)(A) of this IEX Rule;” (iii) in the same sentence, add the word “quantity” after the words “non-displayed” for clarity and consistency (matching the earlier phrase “displayed quantity”).
• Modify IEX Rule 11.220(a)(C)(v) to change the term “refreshed” to “replenished” and to remove the words “after receiving an execution that decrements the displayed portion of a reserve order below one round lot pursuant to” and replace them with the words “as set forth in [IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2)]” to reflect that not all reserve orders replenish when the display portion decrements to less than one round lot, but rather pursuant to the conditions set forth in the proposed changes to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2).
The Exchange will implement the proposed rule change within 90 days of filing, subject to the 30-day operative delay, and provide at least ten (10) days' notice to Members and market participants of the implementation timeline.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Additionally, IEX believes that having a Displayed Odd Lot Reserve order replenish its displayed portion when it decrements to zero shares is consistent with the Act, because, as discussed in the Purpose section, it is the most workable reasonable approach to protecting investors from information leakage and potential adverse selection in a manner responsive to Members' feedback. Accordingly, IEX believes that this approach could incentivize the use of more reserve orders thereby increasing the availability of displayed liquidity over fully non-displayed orders. For all these reasons, IEX believes that replenishing Displayed Odd Lot Reserve orders when the displayed portion decrements to zero supports investor protection and the public interest.
Further, IEX believes that the addition of the random replenishment option for reserve orders is consistent with the Act as it is designed to help to achieve the general goal of reserve orders, which is to display less than the full size of the order to avoid leaking information about the presence of a large resting reserve order which can result in market movement adverse to the reserve order. Because random replenishment results in the display quantity of a reserve order varying with each replenishment, this functionality will further reduce the ability of other market participants to detect that such order is in fact a reserve order.
Furthermore, IEX believes it is consistent with the Act to offer only fixed replenishment for reserve orders with a Max Floor of a single round lot or a mixed lot for the reasons discussed
IEX also notes that, as discussed in the Purpose section, the proposed random replenishment functionality is consistent with the rules of several other equities
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive conforming changes to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) (including the supplementary material) and IEX Rule 11.220(a)(1)(C) are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because they will have no impact on the functionality of reserve orders, but rather simply provide consistency and clarity to how reserve orders function, thereby reducing the potential for confusion of any market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the proposal is designed to enhance IEX's competitiveness with other markets by enabling IEX to offer reserve order functionality substantially similar to that offered by several other equity exchanges. As discussed in the Purpose section, the proposal is designed to incentivize the entry of additional liquidity providing orders on IEX by offering Members the flexibility of using an odd lot display quantity as well as random replenishment of the displayed quantity of a reserve order as described in the Purpose and Statutory Basis sections. Thus, IEX believes that the proposed rule change will enhance its ability to compete with other exchanges that already offer this functionality and thereby attract more reserve orders to the Exchange, to the benefit of all market participants. Moreover, other exchanges may adopt similar functionality subject to the Commission rule filing process.
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All Members would be eligible to use a Displayed Odd Lot Reserve order, and all Members would be eligible to use random or fixed replenishment for their reserve orders in the same manner. Moreover, the proposal would provide potential benefits to all Members to the extent that there is more liquidity available on IEX as a result of increased use of reserve orders.
Further, the proposed conforming edits to IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) (including the supplementary material) and Rule 11.220(a)(1)(C) are not designed to address any competitive issue, but rather to provide additional clarity in IEX's rulebook.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of this proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers), 7.35 (General), 7.35B (DMM-Facilitated Closing Auctions), 7.35C (Exchange-Facilitated Auctions), 98 (Operation of a DMM Unit), and 104 (Dealings and Responsibilities of DMMs) relating to the Closing Auction. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers), 7.35 (General), 7.35B (DMM-Facilitated Closing Auctions), 7.35C (Exchange-Facilitated Auctions), 98 (Operation of a DMM Unit), and 104 (Dealings and Responsibilities of DMMs) relating to the Closing Auction.
The following rules currently describe the Closing Auction process on the Exchange: Rule 7.31 (identifying the order types eligible to participate in an Auction); Rule 7.35 (general rules and definitions applicable to Auctions); Rule 7.35B (describing the process for DMM-facilitated Closing Auctions); Rule 7.35C (describing the process for Exchange-facilitated Auctions); and Rule 104 (establishing DMM obligations with respect to Closing Auctions and trading leading into the Closing Auction).
The following interest is eligible to participate in a Closing Auction:
• Unexecuted buy and sell orders resting on the Exchange Book at the end of Core Trading Hours (including DMM Orders);
• Auction-Only Orders;
• DMM Auction Liquidity entered by the DMM in connection with facilitating the Closing Auction.
In light of the Floor Broker Interest Approval Order, the Exchange is proposing conforming changes to Rule 7.35B(j)(2) and subparagraph (A)(iii) to that Rule. Specifically, Rule 7.35B(j)(2) provides that, to avoid closing price dislocation that may result from an order entered into Exchange systems or represented to a DMM orally at or near the end of Core Trading Hours, the Exchange may temporarily suspend the requirement to enter all order instructions by the end of Core Trading Hours. Because the Exchange has eliminated Floor Broker Interest at the close, the Exchange proposes to delete the phrase “or represented to a DMM orally” in Rule 7.35B(j)(2). For similar reasons, the Exchange proposes to delete the phrase “and Floor Broker Interest” in Rule 7.35B(j)(2)(A)(iii).
Beginning 10 minutes before the scheduled end of Core Trading Hours, the Exchange begins disseminating through its proprietary data feed Closing Auction Imbalance Information that is calculated based on the interest eligible to participate in the Closing Auction.
The Exchange begins accepting Auction-Only Orders for the Closing Auction at 6:30 a.m. Eastern Time and they can be entered and cancelled without restriction until 10 minutes before the scheduled end of Core Trading Hours. If a Regulatory Closing Imbalance has not been published, during the Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze the Exchange will reject all MOC and LOC Orders. If a Regulatory Closing Imbalance has been published, during the Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze the Exchange will accept MOC and LOC Orders opposite the Side of the Regulatory Closing Imbalance and will reject MOC and LOC Orders on the Side of the Imbalance.
Pursuant to Rule 104(a)(3), Designated Market Makers (“DMM”) have the responsibility to facilitate the close of trading for each of the securities in which the DMM is registered as required by Exchange rules, which may include supplying liquidity as needed. Rule 104(a)(3) further provides that DMMs and DMM unit algorithms have access to aggregate order information in order to comply with their requirement to facilitate the close of trading for each of the securities in which the DMM is registered. Accordingly, aggregate order information about all orders eligible to participate in the Closing Auction, including the full quantity of Reserve Orders
Rule 7.35B specifies the process for DMM-facilitated Closing Auctions. Pursuant to Rule 7.35B(a), it is the responsibility of each DMM to ensure that registered securities close as soon after the end of Core Trading Hours as possible, while at the same time not unduly hasty, particularly when at a price disparity from the Exchange Last Sale Price.
Rule 7.35C specifies the process for Exchange-facilitated Auctions if a DMM cannot facilitate an Auction in one or more securities in which the DMM is registered. DMM Interest does not participate in an Exchange-facilitated Closing Auction trade.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 7.31, 7.35, and 7.35B to revise the DMM-facilitated Closing Auction process. The proposed changes would modify how the Closing Auction Price would be determined and how DMMs would be able to participate in the Closing Auction, but would not change their Rule 104 obligation to facilitate the Closing Auction, including to supply liquidity as needed. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would make the Closing Auction more transparent and deterministic, while still retaining the DMMs' unique obligation to facilitate the Closing Auction.
The Exchange also proposes to make conforming changes to Rule 7.35C to revise the orders eligible to participate in Exchange-facilitated Closing Auctions.
(g)
The Exchange believes that adding this proposed Closing Auction Price parameter is consistent with how the Closing Auction Price has been determined for the vast majority of Closing Auctions. For example, in the period January 1, 2021 to July 23, 2021, 96.5% of all Closing Auctions were priced at or between the last-published Imbalance Reference Price and Continuous Book Clearing Price. Similarly, during this same period, 94.9% of closing auction volume priced within these parameters. The Exchange further believes that this proposed change would eliminate any potential
Currently, Rule 7.35B(a)(2) provides that a DMM may enter or cancel DMM Interest after the end of Core Trading Hours in order to supply liquidity as needed to meet the DMM's obligation to facilitate the Closing Auction in a fair and orderly manner. Consistent with this current Rule, the Exchange does not block a DMM from entering or cancelling DMM Interest after the end of Core Trading Hours. Instead, the DMM's determination of whether to enter or cancel DMM Interest after the end or Core Trading Hours is subject to the DMM's obligation to maintain a fair and orderly market, as specified in Rule 104.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35B(a)(2) to provide that after the end of Core Trading Hours, a DMM may enter only DMM Auction Liquidity and only if such interest would offset any Unpaired Quantity at the Closing Auction Price. With this change, DMMs would be systematically restricted with respect to the side, price, and quantity of the DMM Auction Liquidity that they may enter after the end of Core Trading Hours. Because DMM Auction Liquidity would have priority over at-priced Yielding Orders (described in more detail below), the Exchange further proposes that offsetting at-priced Yielding Orders would not be included in the calculation of the Unpaired Quantity that a DMM may offset with DMM Auction Liquidity. With these proposed changes, a DMM could enter DMM Auction Liquidity after the end of Core Trading Hours only to close a security at a price that is at or closer to the Imbalance Reference Price than the published Continuous Book Clearing Price.
The Exchange proposes to cancel DMM Orders (
(2)
With this proposed change to Rule 7.35B(a)(2), DMMs would have fewer tools available to manage the risk of the DMM leading into the Closing Auction, particularly since their DMM Orders would automatically be cancelled before the Closing Auction and they would be systematically restricted with respect to the side, price, and quantity of DMM Auction Liquidity that they may enter after the end of Core Trading Hours. Yet, as required by their obligations in Rule 104, in connection with the Closing Auction, DMMs would still be required to contribute their own capital to supply liquidity as needed to assist in the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. In addition, DMMs would continue to have an obligation with respect to determining a Closing Auction Price that satisfies all better-priced orders on the Side of the Imbalance.
In recognition of both the continued obligations of DMMs with respect to the Closing Auction and their ongoing need to manage the risk of the DMM leading into the Closing Auction, the Exchange proposes to provide DMMs with different tools to participate in the Closing Auction. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to make the existing Closing D Order type available to DMMs. Currently, only Floor brokers may enter Closing D Orders. To enable DMMs to enter Closing D Orders, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(c)(2)(C)(i) to provide that a Closing D Order may be entered only by a Floor broker or DMM. The Exchange proposes that Closing D Orders would function for DMMs in a similar manner as they currently function for Floor brokers, with the following differences:
The reason why the Exchange would accept, or not cancel, a Closing D Order entered by a DMM in the last ten minutes of trading is because, as provided for in Rule 7.35(d), the Exchange will not open or reopen a security that has not yet opened or is halted or paused and will not transition to continuous trading if such opening or reopening would be in the last ten minutes of trading before the end of Core Trading Hours. Instead, the Exchange will remain unopened, halted, or paused and will close the security as provided for in the Rule 7.35 Series. Because in these circumstances, the Exchange would proceed to a Closing Auction, the Exchange proposes to accept (or not cancel) Closing D Orders entered by DMMs in NYSE-listed securities during this ten-minute period, even if the security is in a halt state during that period.
Except for these differences, Closing D Orders entered by DMMs would function the same as they do for Floor brokers, including that:
• Entry of such orders can begin at 6:30 a.m. (Rule 7.34(a)(1)).
• Such orders can be entered in any securities trading on the Exchange, including a UTP Security,
• Such orders would be included in the Closing Auction Imbalance Information at their undisplayed discretionary price beginning five minutes before the end of Core Trading Hours (Rule 7.35(b)(1)(C)(ii)).
• Beginning 10 seconds before the scheduled close of trading, a request to enter a Closing D Order in any security or to cancel, cancel and replace, or modify such order in an Auction-Eligible Security would be rejected (Rule 7.35B(f)(3)).
The Exchange further proposes to exclude Closing D Orders entered by a DMM from the definition of “DMM Orders” in Rule 7.35(a)(9)(B). With this change, the proposed reference to DMM Orders in the amendment to Rule 7.35B(a)(2) would not include Closing D Orders, and therefore, Closing D Orders entered by a DMM would not be cancelled at the end of Core Trading Hours. The Exchange also proposes a clarifying change to Rule 7.35(a)(9)(C) to provide that DMM After-Auction Orders means “DMM Orders,” and not just “orders.” With this change, the definition of DMM After-Auction Orders would similarly not include Closing D Orders entered by a DMM. The Exchange also proposes to delete the phrase “as defined under Rule 7.31” in Rule 7.35(a)(9)(C) as unnecessary because the defined term “DMM Orders” already references Rule 7.31.
The Exchange believes that providing DMMs with the ability to enter Closing D Orders in their assigned securities would provide them with a replacement mechanism both to supply liquidity as needed for the Closing Auction, as required by Rule 104(a)(3), and to manage the risk of the DMM leading into the Closing Auction, in a manner that is more transparent and deterministic than the current process. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that Closing D Orders entered by a DMM would be included in the Closing Auction Imbalance Information at their undisplayed discretionary price beginning five minutes before the end of Core Trading Hours, which is when Closing D Orders entered by Floor brokers are included in the Closing Auction Imbalance Information.
Moreover, because Closing D Orders entered by DMMs would function similarly to Closing D Orders entered by Floor brokers, and would not be permitted to be entered or cancelled in the last ten seconds of trading, the manner by which the Continuous Book Clearing Price would be determined would be the same as today and would not change in the last ten seconds due to the entry of a Closing D Order. In addition, because DMMs could not enter or cancel any new interest after the end of Core Trading Hours (other than offsetting interest), the potential range of Closing Auction Prices would no longer be able to be changed by a DMM after the end of Core Trading Hours.
The Exchange further believes that providing DMMs with the ability to enter Closing D Orders in all securities that trade on the Exchange, including UTP Securities, would generally support the maintenance of a fair and orderly market in securities traded on the Exchange by providing for a mechanism for DMMs to enter such orders directly. Currently, a DMM may choose to use a Floor broker to enter Closing D Orders in securities that have not been assigned to that DMM. The Exchange believes that allowing DMMs to enter Closing D Orders directly would reduce operational complexity and cost for DMMs, thereby creating an incentive for additional firms to register as a DMM. This proposed change would also make it easier for regulatory staff to monitor DMM trading activity on the Exchange.
The Exchange also believes that providing DMMs with the ability to
In addition, proposed Rule 7.35B(h)(2)(A) would provide that at-priced Closing D Orders entered by a DMM in securities not assigned to that DMM would be included in the Book Participant. This allocation methodology would be new because, currently, a member organization acting in its capacity as a DMM is not permitted to enter orders in securities that are not assigned to it. Because a member organization entering orders in NYSE-listed securities not assigned to it in its capacity as a DMM would not be functioning as a DMM, the Exchange proposes that such at-priced Closing D Orders be included in the Book Participant
As proposed, DMM Auction Liquidity, which can be entered only after the end of Core Trading Hours, would be allocated
As noted above in connection with the discussion relating to proposed amendments to Rule 7.35B(a)(2), because DMM Auction Liquidity would be allocated ahead of Yielding Orders, the Exchange would not include offsetting at-priced Yielding Orders in the calculation of the Unpaired Quantity that would be provided to DMMs to let them know the full quantity of DMM Auction Liquidity that they would be eligible to trade at a price point. In addition, because the Exchange proposes to change how DMM Auction Liquidity would be ranked and allocated in a Closing Auction, the Exchange proposes to amend the second sentence of Rule 7.35(a)(9)(A)
As noted above, a DMM would not be able to enter or cancel Closing D Orders in the last ten seconds of Core Trading Hours. In addition, DMMs would be permitted to enter DMM Auction Liquidity after the end of Core Trading Hours, and only to offset Unpaired Quantity at the Closing Auction Price. Accordingly, it could be possible that a DMM has a Closing D Order to buy (sell) that is eligible to participate in the Closing Auction when there is a buy (sell) Unpaired Quantity, and therefore the DMM may be entering offsetting DMM Auction Liquidity to sell (buy). If the prices of two such contra-side orders either lock or cross, the Exchange proposes to apply STP Decrement and Cancel (“STPD”), as described in Rule 7.31(i)(2)(C)(i), to such locking/crossing interest.
Rule 104(g)(1)(A) currently defines an “Aggressing Transaction” as a DMM unit transaction that: “(i) is a purchase (sale) that reaches across the market to trade as the contra-side to the Exchange published offer (bid); and (ii) is priced above (below) the last differently-priced trade on the Exchange and above (below) the last differently-priced published offer (bid) on the Exchange.” Rule 104(g)(1)(B) further provides that:
Aggressing Transactions during the last ten minutes prior to the scheduled close of trading that would result in a new high (low) price for a security on the Exchange for the day at the time of the DMM's transaction are prohibited, unless such transaction would match another market's better bid or offer price, bring the price of that security into parity with an underlying or related security or asset, or would liquidate or decrease the position of the DMM unit.
These are referred to as “Prohibited Transactions.” When the Exchange previously sought to remove Prohibited Transactions, the Commission disapproved the proposed rule change and noted that it analyzed the proposal “in the context of the unique role played by DMMs on the Exchanges.”
Since 2017, the Exchange has implemented changes relating to trading functions on the Exchange leading into the Closing Auction that have altered the balance of DMM obligations against the benefits provided to DMMs. First, in 2019, in connection with the transition to the Pillar trading platform, the Exchange amended its rules to provide that Floor Broker Interest (
Second, beginning in 2020, the Exchange temporarily suspended the availability of Floor Broker Interest to be eligible to participate in the Closing Auction.
The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change further alters the balance of DMM obligations compared to the benefits provided to DMMs with respect to the Closing Auction. The Exchange believes that in the aggregate, these changes (including the elimination of Floor Broker Interest) result in a shift that decreases the benefits available to DMMs without a commensurate decrease in obligations. Specifically, with this proposed rule change:
• DMMs must still meet their Rule 104 obligation to facilitate the Closing Auction and supply liquidity as needed. They must also select an Auction Price that satisfies all better-priced orders on the Side of the Imbalance. However, they would now be systematically restricted as to the price range at which the Closing Auction Price could be determined. As proposed, if the Side of the Imbalance is to buy (sell), the Auction Price must be at or above (below) the last-published Imbalance Reference Price and not above (below) the last-published non-zero Continuous Book Clearing Price. Accordingly, with this proposed change, DMMs will be subject to a further limitation on how they may select the Closing Auction Price. By contrast, under current rules, there is no express requirement for a DMM to close a stock within the Continuous Book Clearing Price, although DMMs are obligated to, among other things, supply liquidity as needed to facilitate the Closing Auction in a fair and orderly manner. This proposed change promotes transparency and determinism of the Closing Auction Price and systematically constrains how a DMM selects a Closing Auction Price. The Exchange therefore believes that this proposed change decreases the unique benefits granted to the DMMs without decreasing the obligations on the DMMs with respect to the Closing Auction.
• The only interest that a DMM may enter after the end of Core Trading Hours to participate in the Closing Auction would be DMM Auction Liquidity, and such interest could be entered only to offset Unpaired Quantity at the Auction Price. Such interest is thus restricted by side, price, and quantity. By contrast, under current rules, DMMs have no systematic restrictions on entering or cancelling DMM Interest after the end of Core Trading Hours. This change ensures that DMM Auction Liquidity could be used only to dampen significant price movements at the close. The Exchange believes this proposed change significantly decreases unique benefits to the DMMs because they would still be required to supply liquidity as needed to support a fair and orderly Closing Auction, but would have limited tools to enter any such interest after the end of Core Trading Hours. The Exchange proposes to make the Closing D Order available to DMMs in part to offset this reduction of unique benefits with respect to entering or cancelling DMM Interest after the end of Core Trading Hours. However, unlike how DMMs currently may enter and cancel DMM Interest, DMMs would not receive any unique treatment with respect to the availability of this order type. To the contrary, Closing D Orders for DMMs would function similarly to Closing D Orders available to Floor brokers, including that they may not be entered or cancelled in the last ten seconds of trading and the interest would be included in the Closing Auction Imbalance Information. Accordingly, the Exchange is not providing a bespoke tool for DMMs to supply liquidity for the Closing Auction. In addition, the Exchange proposes to make Closing D Orders available for a wholly independent reason to provide an incentive for more broker-dealers to seek to register as a DMM, which would increase DMM diversity on the Exchange to increase issuer choice.
• DMM Auction Liquidity entered in connection with facilitating the Closing Auction would, by its terms, be at-priced interest and would be allocated
DMMs would continue to have benefits in connection with their unique role. For example, at the point of sale, DMMs have access to aggregated buying and selling interest that is eligible to participate in the Closing Auction.
Providing Closing D Orders to DMMs would also provide them with a benefit. However, that benefit would not be unique to DMMs, as this order type is also available to Floor brokers. Because all Floor brokers operate on an agency-only basis, any market participant can avail themselves of Floor broker services and use Closing D Orders. The Exchange also believes that providing Closing D Orders to DMMs is designed to offset the current significant barriers to entry for new DMM firms on the Exchange, which is an obligation independent of the obligations related to the Closing Auction.
In the aggregate, the Exchange believes that the above-described changes have altered the balance of benefits and obligations for DMMs and the resulting scope of obligations would no longer be commensurate with DMM benefits. For example, with respect to the benefits specifically identified by the Commission in the Disapproval Order, DMMs no longer have an informational advantage relating to Floor broker verbal interest at the close and their at-priced DMM Auction Liquidity would no longer have priority over LOC or Closing IO Orders.
The Exchange believes that as a result of these significant alterations to DMM obligations and benefits, any current need for Prohibited Transactions as a DMM obligation has been obviated. As described by the Commission, Prohibited Transactions provide for a bright-line rule designed to prevent a DMM from aggressively taking liquidity and moving prices on the Exchange immediately before the Closing Auction, and therefore destabilizing the market.
Because the Exchange proposes to eliminate Prohibited Transactions, the Exchange proposes to make a conforming amendment to Rule 98 to delete subparagraphs (c)(5) and (c)(5)(A) and renumber subparagraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7) as (c)(5) and (c)(6). The Exchange added Rule 98(c)(5) for the sole purpose of requiring DMMs to provide net position information in connection with monitoring their compliance with Prohibited Transactions.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104(a)(2) to update the cross reference from Rule 123D to Rule 7.35A and to use the Pillar terms of “Core Open Auctions and Trading Halt Auctions” instead of referring to “openings.” The Exchange also proposes to delete the reference to Rule 13 and Reserve Order interest procedures at the opening as obsolete. Finally, the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to Supplementary Material .05 to Rule 104 with respect to odd-lot order information to the DMM unit algorithm, as this is also obsolete now that the Exchange trades on Pillar.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104(a)(3) to update the cross reference from Rule 123C to Rule 7.35B and to use the Pillar term of “Closing Auctions” instead of “closes.” The Exchange also proposes to delete the reference to Rule 13 and Reserve Order interest procedures at the close as obsolete.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104(b) by deleting subparagraphs (2) and (6) and replacing the text for Rule 104(b)(2) with the following: “Unless otherwise specified in Rule 7.31, DMM unit algorithms may use the orders and modifiers set forth in Rule 7.31.” Rule 104(b)(2) currently provides that “Exchange systems shall enforce the proper sequencing of incoming orders and algorithmically-generated messages and will prevent incoming DMM interest from trading with resting DMM interest. If the incoming DMM
Rule 104(b)(6) currently provides that “DMM Units may not enter the following orders and modifiers: Market Orders, MOO Orders, CO Orders, MOC Orders, LOC Orders, or Buy Minus Zero Plus Instructions.” In the Pillar rules, Rule 7.31 sets forth which orders and modifiers are not available to DMMs, and therefore Rule 104(b)(6) is obsolete. The Exchange believes that the proposed new text for Rule 104(b)(2) would provide transparency that Rule 7.31 would describe which orders and modifiers would be available to DMMs, including STP modifiers.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104(b)(3) to delete references to “Floor broker agency interest files or reserve interest” as such references are now obsolete. The Exchange no longer uses “Floor broker agency interest files” and no longer provides Floor brokers with reserve interest functionality that differs from the Reserve Orders available to all member organizations, as described in Rule 7.31.
• The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104(b) by deleting subparagraph (4), which provides that “[t]he DMM unit's algorithm may place within Exchange systems trading interest to be known as a “Capital Commitment Schedule”. (See Rule 1000 concerning the operation of the Capital Commitment Schedule).” With the transition to Pillar, the Exchange has replaced the “Capital Commitment Schedule” with Capital Commitment Orders, as described in Rule 7.31(d)(5), and has deleted Rule 1000. Accordingly, this current rule is obsolete. The Exchange proposes a non-substantive amendment to renumber Rule 104(b)(5) as Rule 104(b)(4).
• The Exchange proposes to delete the text accompanying current Rules 104(c), (d), and (e) as obsolete now that the Exchange trades on Pillar.
With these proposed deletions, the Exchange proposes non-substantive amendments to renumber Rules 104(f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) as Rules 104(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) and update cross-references in proposed Rule 104(e)(iii) from subparagraph (h)(ii) and (iii) to (e)(ii) and (iii).
• The Exchange proposes to amend current Rule 104(h)(ii) (proposed Rule 104(e)(ii)) to delete reference to information that is no longer available to a DMM at the post. Specifically, the Exchange no longer provides DMMs at the post with the following information: “the price and size of any individual order or Floor broker agency interest file and the entering and clearing firm information for such order, except that the display shall exclude any order or portion thereof that a market participant has elected not to display to a DMM”. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104(e)(ii) to delete that rule text.
The Exchange proposes that the non-substantive amendments to Rule 104 (not including the proposed elimination of prohibited transactions) would be operative immediately upon approval of this proposed rule change. Because of the technology changes associated with the proposed changes to the Closing Auction process and availability of Closing D Orders for DMMs, the Exchange proposes that, subject to approval of the proposed rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date of the remaining proposed rule changes, including the elimination of prohibited transactions, by Trader Update. Subject to approval of this proposed rule change, the Exchange anticipates that such changes will be implemented in the first half of 2022.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that making Closing D Orders available to DMMs would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because they would provide DMMs with a replacement mechanism both to meet their ongoing Rule 104(a)(3) obligations with respect to the Closing Auction to contribute their own capital to supply liquidity as needed to assist in the maintenance of a fair and orderly market and to manage the risk of the DMM. The Exchange further believes that it would promote transparency and determinism to the Closing Auction process for DMMs to enter their interest before the end of Core Trading Hours. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that Closing D Orders entered by a DMM would be included in the Closing Auction Imbalance Information at their undisplayed discretionary price beginning five minutes before the end of Core Trading Hours, which is when Closing D Orders entered by Floor brokers are included in the Closing Auction Imbalance Information. With this change, Closing D Orders entered by DMMs would be reflected in the Closing Auction Imbalance Information, which is not the case for DMM Interest currently entered or cancelled after the end of Core Trading Hours. Market participants would be able to respond to any changes in the Closing Auction Imbalance Information that may result from Closing D Orders entered by DMMs by entering interest into the continuous order book or retaining the services of a Floor broker to enter Closing D Orders on their behalf.
In addition, Closing D Orders are not novel and the Exchange proposes that they would function for DMMs in a similar manner as they currently function for Floor brokers, with only two substantive differences. First, DMMs could not combine a Yielding Modifier with a Closing D Order. The Yielding Modifier is not necessary for DMMs because their transactions on the Exchange are as a dealer acting in the capacity as a market maker, and therefore they are not subject to the trading prohibitions specified in Section 11(a) of the Act.
The Exchange further believes that providing DMMs with the ability to enter Closing D Orders in securities that trade on the Exchange, including UTP Securities, that are not assigned to them as a DMM, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and support the maintenance of a fair and orderly market because it would provide a mechanism for DMMs to enter such orders directly. Currently, a DMM may choose to use a Floor broker to enter Closing D Orders in securities that have not been assigned to that DMM. The Exchange believes that allowing DMMs to enter Closing D Orders directly would reduce operational complexity and cost for DMMs, thereby creating an incentive for additional firms to register as a DMM. This proposed change would also make it easier for regulatory staff to monitor DMM trading activity on the Exchange.
In addition, the Exchange believes that making this order type available to DMMs for all securities that trade on the Exchange would provide an incentive for additional broker-dealers to register as a DMM on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange believes that providing potential new DMM entrants with additional opportunities to provide liquidity across all securities that trade on the Exchange may serve as an incentive for new entrants to undertake the costs to register as a DMM unit without a significant roster of allocated securities. The Exchange further believes that promoting diversity of DMMs would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing issuers with additional choice in their DMM assignments.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 7.35(a)(9)(B) and (C) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because they would promote clarity and transparency regarding the terms “DMM Order” and “DMM Auction Liquidity” in a manner designed to conform to the substantive changes to how DMMs would participate in the Closing Auction. The Exchange further believes that the proposed amendment to Rule 7.35B(j)(2)(A)(iii) would similarly remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed amendment is consistent with the proposal that DMM Orders would not be eligible to participate in a Closing Auction; if a DMM were permitted to enter DMM Orders during a Solicitation Period under that Rule, such orders would need to be cancelled before the Closing Auction, per proposed changes to Rule 7.35B(a)(2).
• The Exchange believes that amending Rule 7.35B(h)(1) to provide that better-priced Closing D Orders entered by a DMM would be guaranteed to participate in the Closing Auction (subject to DMM-specific self-trade prevention) would promote a fair and orderly Closing Auction process because better-priced DMM Closing D Orders would not receive a different allocation opportunity from other Participants that
• The Exchange believes that amending Rule 7.35B(h)(2)(A) to provide that at-priced Closing D Orders in securities that are assigned to the DMM would be included in the DMM Participant allocation would promote a fair and orderly Closing Auction process because it is consistent with the current allocation of at-priced DMM Interest in the Closing Auction, and therefore it is not novel. This benefit is designed to offset the DMM's significant obligation to facilitate the Closing Auction and supply liquidity as needed. The Exchange further notes that the proposed amendment would allow this at-priced DMM Participant allocation only for Closing D Orders, which, by their terms, must be entered before the end of Core Trading Hours and would be included in the Closing Auction Imbalance Information. Accordingly, this proposed allocation would be consistent with how Closing D Orders are currently allocated for Floor brokers in the Closing Auction because they would be allocated as part of the allocation of orders ranked Priority 2—Display Orders, which currently get an allocation opportunity before orders ranked Priority 3—Non-Display Orders and LOC Orders. The Exchange likewise believes that the proposal that at-priced Closing D Orders entered by DMMs in securities not assigned to the DMM be included in the Book Participant would be consistent with existing Rules because in such case, the member organization entering such orders would not be functioning as a DMM, and therefore would not be eligible for a DMM Participant allocation for such orders.
• The Exchange believes that amending Rule 7.35B(h)(2) to add new sub-paragraph (E) describing how DMM Auction Liquidity would be allocated would promote a fair and orderly Closing Auction process. Specifically, because DMM Auction Liquidity could be entered only to offset Unpaired Quantity at the Closing Auction Price, the Exchange does not believe that such interest should get an allocation benefit. Accordingly, DMM Auction Liquidity would be allocated
• The Exchange believes that deleting the text currently set forth in Rule 7.35B(h)(3)(A) and replacing it with a description of how self-trade prevention would be applied within the DMM Participant Allocation would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would promote transparency of the circumstances of when and how DMM Interest would be decremented and cancelled to prevent a self-trade between Closing D Order(s) to buy (sell) entered by a DMM and DMM Auction Liquidity to sell (buy). By applying STPD, the Exchange believes that the proposed mechanism would reduce the impact of such cancellation on the Closing Auction Price.
• DMMs would still have the obligation to select a Closing Auction Price that satisfies all better-priced orders on the Side of the Imbalance and supply liquidity as needed to facilitate a fair and orderly Closing Auction Process. However, as proposed, the DMM would now be systematically restricted as to the price range at which the Closing Auction Price could be determined and therefore DMMs would be subject to a further limitation on how they may select the Closing Auction Price. Accordingly, the Exchange believes this proposed change would maintain obligations on DMMs with respect to the Closing Auction while decreasing the tools available to meet those obligations.
• DMMs would no longer have discretion after the end of Core Trading Hours to enter or cancel DMM Interest. Instead, as proposed, after the end of Core Trading Hours, DMMs would be able to enter only DMM Auction Liquidity and could enter such interest only at pre-determined price ranges and only if such interest would offset Unpaired Quantity at those pre-determined price ranges. Accordingly, such interest would be systematically restricted by side, price, and quantity. This change ensures that DMM Auction Liquidity could be used only to dampen significant price movements at the close. The Exchange believes this proposed change significantly decreases unique benefits to the DMMs because they would still be required to supply liquidity as needed to support a fair and orderly Closing Auction, but would have limited tools to enter any such interest after the end of Core Trading Hours.
• The Exchange proposes to make the Closing D Order available to DMMs in part to offset this reduction of unique benefits with respect to entering or cancelling DMM Interest after the end of Core Trading Hours. However, unlike how DMMs currently may enter and cancel DMM Interest, DMMs would not receive any unique treatment with
• DMM Auction Liquidity entered in connection with facilitating the Closing Auction would, by its terms, be at-priced interest and would be allocated
In the aggregate, the Exchange believes that the above-described changes have altered the balance of benefits and obligations for DMMs and the resulting scope of obligations would no longer be commensurate with DMM benefits. For example, with respect to the benefits specifically identified by the Commission in the Disapproval Order, DMMs no longer have an informational advantage relating to Floor broker verbal interest at the close and their at-priced DMM Auction Liquidity would no longer have priority over LOC or Closing IO Orders.
The Exchange believes that, as a result of these significant alterations to DMM obligations and benefits, any current need for Prohibited Transactions as a DMM obligation would be obviated. As described by the Commission, Prohibited Transactions provide for a bright-line rule designed to prevent a DMM from aggressively taking liquidity and moving prices on the Exchange immediately before the Closing Auction, and therefore destabilizing the market.
The Exchange notes that in the absence of Prohibited Transactions, if a DMM engages in an Aggressing Transaction in the last ten minutes of trading, the DMM would be subject to the re-entry obligations specified in current Rule 104(g)(2) (proposed Rule 104(d)(2)). Accordingly, DMMs would continue to be subject to a unique obligation in the last ten minutes of trading that would not be applicable to any other member organizations trading on the Exchange. To the extent a DMM engages in an Aggressing Transaction in the last ten minutes of trading, such re-entry obligation would dampen any potential destabilizing impact of such Aggressing Transaction.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 98 to delete sub-paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(5)(A) and renumber subparagraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7) as (c)(5) and (c)(6) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the Exchange added Rule 98(c)(5) for the sole purpose of requiring DMMs to provide net position information in connection with monitoring their compliance with Prohibited Transactions.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed non-substantive amendments to Rules 7.35B(j)(2) and 7.35B(j)(2)(A)(iii) to eliminate references to Floor broker interest and oral interest entered by Floor brokers at the close would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because these proposed changes are designed to conform Exchange rules to the changes described in the Floor Broker Interest Approval Order.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-44 and should be submitted on or before October 13, 2021.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to provide historical Open-Close Report data for free by amending the fees for the Open-Close Report to: (i) Respond to ad hoc requests for end-of-day data free of charge; and (ii) provide mid-month subscribers data for the entire month in which they subscribe.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange recently adopted a new data product for options known as the Open-Close Report,
By way of background, the Exchange offers two versions of the Open-Close Report, an end-of-day summary and intra-day report.
Members and non-Members may purchase the Open-Close Report on a monthly basis. The Exchange currently assess a monthly fee of $600 per month for subscribing to the end-of-day summary Open-Close Report and $2,000 per month for subscribing to the intra-day Open-Close Report. For mid-month subscriptions, new subscribers are currently charged for the full calendar month for which they subscribe and will be provided Open-Close Report data for each trading day of the calendar month from the day on which they subscribed.
The Exchange now proposes to provide Members and Non-Members who request on an ad hoc basis historical end-of-day Open-Close Report data free of charge.
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) and Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) both assess $400 for historical end-of-day data per request per month.
The Exchange also proposes to make the historical monthly data available fifteen (15) days after the end of the month for which it is requested. The Exchange proposes this delay because it is making historical end-of-day Open-Close Report data free of charge and seeks to not encourage subscribers to request historical end-of-day Open-Close Report data over a paid subscription.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the data range of Open-Close Report data it provides to mid-month subscribers. As noted above, the Exchange currently charges new mid-month subscribers for the full calendar month for which they subscribe, but only provides Open-Close Report data for each trading day of the calendar month from the day on which they subscribed. The Exchange now proposes to provide new mid-month subscribers data for each trading day of the calendar month prior to the day on which they subscribe. In other words, those that subscribe mid-month will be provided Open-Close Data retroactively for each trading day of the month in which they subscribed and prospectively for each trading day for the remainder of that calendar month pursuant to either the end-of-day or intra-day subscription they chose. This is identical to how the Exchange provides data to mid-month subscribers of the Exchange's Liquidity Taker Event report.
The Exchange intends to provide historical Open-Close Report data for free pursuant this proposal immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. Particularly, the Open-Close Report further broadens the availability of U.S. option market data to investors consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS. The data product also promotes increased transparency through the dissemination of the Open-Close Report. Particularly, information regarding opening and closing activity across different option series during the trading day may indicate investor sentiment, which may allow market participants to make better informed trading decisions throughout the day. Subscribers to the data may also be able to enhance their ability to analyze option trade and volume data and create and test trading models and analytical strategies. The Exchange believes the Open-Close Report provides a valuable tool that subscribers can use to gain comprehensive insight into the trading activity in a particular series, but also emphasizes such data is not necessary for trading. Moreover, other exchanges offer a similar data product.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade options. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 15% of the market share and currently the Exchange represents only approximately 5.54% of the market share.
The Exchange believes its proposal to provide Open-Close data in response to ad hoc request for end-of-day data free of charge is reasonable as the proposed rate is lower than the fees assessed by other exchanges that provide data in response to ad hoc request for their similar data products.
The Exchange also believes its proposal to amend the fees for the Open-Close Report to: (i) Provide historical end-of-day data free of charge and (ii) provide mid-month subscribers data for the entire month in which they subscribe, is reasonable as it would further support its recent introduction of the Open-Close Report, which is designed to aid investors by providing insight into trading on the Exchange. Providing market data, such as the Open-Close Report, is also a means by which exchanges compete to attract business. Subscribers that receive end-of-day Open-Close data for free in response to an ad hoc request may use such data to evaluate the usefulness of the Exchange's Open-Close Report and decide, based on that data, whether to subscribe to the Open-Close Report on a monthly basis. In addition, providing new mid-month subscribers data for the entire calendar month would further enhance the value of the Open-Close Report and encourage mid-month subscriptions market participants that seek to subscribe to the Open-Close Report not having to wait to the first of the next month to subscribe and receive a full month of Open-Close Report Data for the current monthly fee. To the extent that the Exchange is successful in attracting subscribers for the Open-Close Report through this proposal, it may earn trading revenues and further enhance the value of its data products. The Exchange also believes it proposal to make historical end-of-day Open-Close Report data on a delayed basis is a reasonable means to not encourage subscribers to request historical end-of-day Open-Close Report data over a paid subscription. If the market deems the proposal to be unfair or inequitable,
As noted above, a wide variety of market participants to subscribe to the Open-Close Report, including but not limited to individual customers, buy-side investors and investment banks. The Exchange reiterates that the decision as to whether or not to subscribe to the Open-Close Report is entirely optional for all potential subscribers. Indeed, no market participant is required to subscribe to the Open-Close Report, and the Exchange is not required to make the Open-Close Report available to all investors. Rather, the Exchange is voluntarily making additional Open-Close Report data available via ad hoc requests for end-of-day data and to mid-month subscribers under this proposal at the request of customers, and market participants may choose to receive this data based on their own business needs. Potential subscribe to or request the data at any time if they believe it to be valuable or may decline to subscribe such data.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposal will promote competition by permitting the Exchange to enhance the value of a data product that is similar to those offered by other competitor options exchanges.
Furthermore, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price the Open-Close Report is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar data products to their customers. As discussed, there are currently a number of similar products available to market participants and investors. At least eight other U.S. options exchanges offer a market data product that is substantially similar to the Open-Close Report, which the Exchange must consider in its pricing discipline in order to compete for the market data.
The Exchange also does not believe the proposal would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition as other exchanges are free to introduce their own comparable data product and lower their prices to better compete with the Exchange's offering. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition. Particularly, the proposal would apply uniformly to any market participant, in that it does not differentiate between subscribers to the Open-Close Report. The proposal is modest and would allow any interested Member or non-Member to subscribe to or request such data based on their business needs.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EMERALD-2021-28 and should be submitted on or before October 13, 2021.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments up to October 22, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument, and supporting documents, to A. Lages at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• 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.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The DS-261 allows the beneficiary of an approved and current immigrant visa petition to provide the Department with his or her preferred email address, which will be used for communications with the beneficiary. The DS-261 also allows the beneficiary to appoint an agent to receive mailings from the National Visa Center (NVC) and assist in the filing of various application forms and/or paying the required fees. The beneficiary is not required to appoint an agent but must provide current contact information. All cases will be held at NVC until the DS-261 is electronically submitted to the Department.
Applicants will complete the form online and submit it electronically to the Department.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 13 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions are applicable on September 30, 2021. The exemptions expire on September 30, 2023. Comments must be received on or before October 22, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0389, Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0050, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0381, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0117, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0008, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0028, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0030, or Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0031 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0389, Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0050, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0381, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0117, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0008, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0028, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0030, or Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0031), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The 13 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 13 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 13 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the
As of September 30, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 13 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0389, FMCSA-2012-0050, FMCSA-2014-0381, FMCSA-2015-0117, FMCSA-2016-0008, FMCSA-2019-0028, FMCSA-2019-0030, or FMCSA-2019-0031. Their exemptions are applicable as of September 30, 2021 and will expire on September 30, 2021.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the 2-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified ME, as defined by § 390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based on its evaluation of the 13 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Transportation (DOT).
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA requests public comment on an application for exemption from Keep Truckin, Inc. (KeepTruckin) to allow its AI Dashcam system, which is equipped with cameras, to be mounted lower in the windshield on commercial motor vehicles than is currently permitted.
Comments must be received on or before October 22, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2021-0125 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. José R. Cestero, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, (202) 366-5541, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Dockets Operations at (202) 366-9826.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA 2021-0125), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory processes, in accordance with statute 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6)(A). DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The FMCSRs require devices meeting the definition of “vehicle safety technology” to be mounted (1) not more than 4 inches below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, or (2) not more than 7 inches above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. KeepTruckin has applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) to allow its AI Dashcam system, which is equipped with camera(s) and safety technologies, to be mounted lower in the windshield than is currently permitted. A copy of the exemption application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on KeepTruckin's application for an exemption. All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for extension of currently approved collection. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The
Written comments should be submitted by October 22, 2021.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: OST Desk Officer. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Cecelia Robinson, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Room E34-410, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-4405, Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or email
The Department of Transportation sets and updates the Intra-Alaska Bush mail rates based on carrier aircraft operating expense, traffic, and operational data. Form 298-C cost data, especially fuel costs, terminal expenses, and line haul expenses are used in arriving at rate levels. DOT revises the established rates based on the percentage of unit cost changes in the carriers' operations. These updating procedures have resulted in the carriers receiving rates of compensation that more closely parallel their costs of providing mail service and contribute to the carriers' economic well-being.
DOT often has to select a carrier to provide a community's essential air service. The selection criteria include historic presence in the community, reliability of service, financial stability, and cost structure of the air carrier.
Fitness determinations are made for both new entrants and established U.S. domestic carriers proposing a substantial change in operations. A portion of these applications consists of an operating plan for the first year (14 CFR part 204) and an associated projection of revenues and expenses. The carrier's operating costs, included in these projections, are compared against the cost data in Form 298-C for a carrier or carriers with the same aircraft type and similar operating characteristics. Such a review validates the reasonableness of the carrier's operating plan.
The quarterly financial submissions by commuter and small certificated air carriers are used in determining each carrier's continuing fitness to operate. Section 41738 of Title 49 of the United States Code requires DOT to find all commuter and small certificated air carriers fit, willing, and able to conduct passenger service as a prerequisite to providing such service to an eligible essential air service point. In making a fitness determination, DOT reviews three areas of a carrier's operation: (1) The qualifications of its management team, (2) its disposition to comply with laws and regulations, and (3) its financial posture. DOT must determine whether or not a carrier has sufficient financial resources to conduct its operations without imposing undue risk on the traveling public. Moreover, once a carrier begins conducting flight operations, DOT is required to monitor its continuing fitness.
Senior DOT officials must be kept fully informed and advised of all current and developing economic issues affecting the airline industry. In preparing financial condition reports or status reports on a particular airline, financial and traffic data are analyzed. Briefing papers prepared for senior DOT officials may use the same information.
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On September 16, 2021, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. GURLEYEN, Soner, Istanbul, Turkey; DOB 06 Jun 1988; POB Gaziosmanpasha, Turkey; citizen Turkey; Gender Male; Identification Number 20768654918 (Turkey) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: AL QA'IDA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,” 66 FR 49079, as amended by Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, “Modernizing Sanctions To Combat Terrorism,” 84 FR 48041 (E.O. 13224, as amended), for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, AL-QA'IDA, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
2. GUZEL, Cebrail (a.k.a. GUZEL, Jebrail), Istanbul, Turkey; DOB 10 Jul 1993; POB Gerger, Adiyaman, Turkey; nationality Turkey; Gender Male; Identification Number 17011251840 (Turkey) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: AL QA'IDA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, AL-QA'IDA, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
3. MUSLIHAN, Nurettin, Istanbul, Turkey; DOB 20 May 1974; POB Gerger, Turkey; citizen Turkey; Gender Male; Identification Number 18931187806 (Turkey) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: AL QA'IDA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having
4. SALIM, Majdi Muhammad Muhammad (a.k.a. SALIM, Majdi), Turkey; DOB 11 May 1956; alt. DOB 1958; POB Egypt; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: AL QA'IDA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, AL-QA'IDA, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
5. AL-GHAZLANI, Muhammad Nasr al-Din, Turkey; DOB 06 Sep 1968; nationality Egypt; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: AL QA'IDA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, AL-QA'IDA, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On September 17, 2021, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. AL-SHA'IR, Ali (a.k.a. AL-SHAER, Ali), Sultanah, Bint Jbeil, Nabatieh, Lebanon; DOB 26 Jan 1967; citizen Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male; National ID No. 000013901514 (Lebanon) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,” 66 FR 49079, as amended by Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, “Modernizing Sanctions To Combat Terrorism,” 84 FR 48041 (E.O. 13224, as amended), for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, HIZBALLAH, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
2. AL-SHATTI, Jamal Husayn 'Abd 'Ali 'Abd-al-Rahim (a.k.a. ALSHATTI, Jamal Hussein Abd Ali; a.k.a. ALSHUTTI, Jamal H A A A), Kuwait; DOB 20 Aug 1964; Gender Male; Passport 004465264 (Kuwait) expires 13 Dec 2021; National ID No. 264082000213 (Kuwait) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, HIZBALLAH, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
3. HADWAN, Hasib Muhammad (a.k.a. HADWAN, Hasib; a.k.a. “ZAYN, Hajj”; a.k.a. “ZAYN, Hajj Mustafa”; a.k.a. “ZEIN, Hajj”), Lebanon; DOB 1959; POB Hazin, Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male; National ID No. 2288073 (Lebanon) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having been owned, controlled, or directed by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, HIZBALLAH, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
4. ISMAIL, Talib Husayn Ali Jarak, Block 8, Street 20, House No. 33, Jabriya, Kuwait; Street 21, Salem Al Mubarak Avenue, Block 20, Building 13, Salmiya, Kuwait; PO Box 3390, Safat 13034, Kuwait City, Kuwait; PO Box 126, Safat 13002, Kuwait City, Kuwait; Block 8, Street 103, Building 33, Apartment 33, Jabriya, Kuwait; Mubarak Al Kabir, Darwaza abdul Razak Square, Kuwait City, Kuwait; DOB 30 Apr 1956; POB Kuwait City, Kuwait; VisaNumberID 35458806 (United States) expires 22 Apr 2011; alt. VisaNumberID C5288096 (United States) expires 25 Sep 2020 (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, HIZBALLAH, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission revises its Schedule of Regulatory Fees to recover an amount of $374,000,000 that Congress has required the Commission to collect for fiscal year 2021. Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides for the annual assessment and collection of regulatory fees under respectively.
Effective September 22, 2021. To avoid penalties and interest, regulatory fees should be paid by the due date of September 24, 2021.
Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0444.
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 21-98, MD Docket No. 21-190, adopted on August 25, 2021 and released on August 26, 2020. The full text of this document is available for public inspection by downloading the text from the Commission's website at
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to this
2. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
2. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that these rules are non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Report & Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
3. In this
4. This
5.
6. Several commenters representing the broadcast industry object to the assessment on broadcasters of any portion of the $33 million designated by Congress to cover the costs of implementation of the Broadband DATA Act as part of the Commission's FY 2021 appropriation. They argue that broadcasters are not regulated by nor do they benefit from implementation of the Broadband DATA Act. Specifically, that these Broadband DATA Act costs are not overhead costs because they pertain only to certain Commission core bureaus and identifiable entities, namely, broadband service providers, that are regulated by and benefit from the Commission's activities implementing the legislation.
7. Therefore, we adjust the Commission's approach to account for the unusual circumstances accompanying the Broadband DATA Act earmark. While we categorize the costs of implementation of the Broadband DATA Act as indirect costs consistent with our normal methodology, in this limited instance, given the one-time nature and magnitude of the earmark, the statutory text, the legislative history, and the record in this proceeding, we exclude one group of regulatees—broadcasters or “Media Services” licensees—from their share of these indirect costs. While we modify our methodology here with respect to the $33 million earmark, this one-time modification is consistent with the Commission's longstanding goals of implementing a fair, sustainable, and administrable regulatory fee regime.
8.
9.
10.
11. We adopt our proposal to include non-geographic numbers in the calculation of the number of subscribers for each Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) provider. The inclusion non-geographic numbers does not increase the total amount collected from the CMRS industry but will reduce the per subscriber fee. In the
12. We adopt our proposal to complete the phase-in of the DBS regulatory fee and place all DBS, cable television, and internet Protocol television (IPTV) providers in the same fee category at the same per subscriber regulatory fee. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS providers are multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), as defined in section 602(13) of the Act. The Media Bureau oversees the regulation of MVPDs, including the two providers of DBS in the United States: DISH Network and DIRECTV. Upon adoption of this
13. We adopt the use of the population-based methodology for full-service television broadcasters for FY 2021, as proposed. In FY 2020, the Commission completed the transition to a population-based full-power broadcast television regulatory fee, finding it to be more equitable. In the FY 2021 NPRM, we proposed adopting a factor of .8525 of one cent ($.008525) per population served for FY 2021 full-power broadcast television station fees. We are, however, adopting a lower fee factor, .7793 of one cent ($.007793). This lower fee factor is a result of excluding radio and television broadcasters from the $33 million portion of our appropriation that is earmarked for implementation of the Broadband DATA Act. The population data for each licensee and the population-based fee (population multiplied by $.007793) for each full-power broadcast television station, including each satellite station, is listed in Table 7. Some commenters argue that the Commission's resources in oversight and regulation do not increase or decrease depending on the population served by a broadcaster, and therefore we should not base the regulatory fee on the population served. These commenters do not, however, offer an alternative proposal that would be fair and reasonable to small and large broadcasters. As we have previously stated, the Commission's methodology need not reach scientific precision, but simply be reasonable.
14. We adopt the same adjustments to population count for FY 2021 for TV broadcasters in Puerto Rico that we provided those broadcasters in FY 2020. Previously, a group of broadcasters in Puerto Rico argued that our methodology overstates the population served by Puerto Rico stations because the mountainous terrain conditions result in the TVStudy overstating the population served. They also argued that significant and measurable drops in Puerto Rico's population resulting from an exodus caused in part by Hurricane Maria overstated that the population counts underlying the TVStudy. To address these concerns, in the
15. We decline to revise our rules and remove a Responsible Organizations (RespOrgs)'s responsibility to pay regulatory fees for toll-free numbers. Toll-free numbers allow callers to reach the called party without being charged for the call. With toll-free calls, the charge for the call is paid by the called party (the toll-free subscriber) instead. Historically, the Commission has not assessed regulatory fees on toll-free numbers under the rationale that the entities controlling the numbers, wireline and wireless carriers, were paying regulatory fees based on either revenues or subscribers. For reasons discussed in the
16. A commenter contends that the regulatory fee for toll-free numbers should be assessed differently for entities that are not carriers, arguing that carriers that report revenues on FCC Form 499s, should be responsible for the payment of regulatory fees. Commenter contends that clients should remit the fee to the Commission under their own FCC Registration Numbers. We disagree and continue to believe that the existing process is orderly and equitable. While we recognize that many RespOrgs offset their fee payments to the Commission by passing these fees on to their customers who use the toll-free numbers, this practice is not mandatory. The statutory responsibility for payment of the regulatory fee rests solely with the regulated entity, the RespOrg, and not with customers of the RespOrg. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the RespOrg to pay the full amount of toll-free regulatory fees to the Commission by the fee due date.
17. We adopt our proposal to use the same tiers for assessing fees on submarine cable operators for FY 2021 as in FY 2020, which are based on the “lit” capacity of the fiber-optic submarine cable. International bearer circuits (IBCs) consist of terrestrial and satellite circuits and submarine cable systems. Prior to 2009, IBC regulatory fees were collected based on 64 kbps circuits for each of the three types of facilities used to provide international service. In 2009, at the request of a large number of submarine cable operators (“2009 Consensus Proposal”), the Commission changed the methodology for assessing IBC fees and began to assess fees on a per cable landing license basis, with higher fees for larger submarine cable systems and lower fees for smaller submarine cable systems. The Commission concluded that this methodology served the public interest and was competitively neutral because it included both common carriers and non-common carriers. Through FY 2019, the Commission continued to assess fees for international service provided over terrestrial and satellite facilities based on a per 64 kbps basis with the proportion of 87.6% for submarine cable operators, and 12.4% for terrestrial and satellite facilities based on relative capacity at the time. Later, the Commission adopted a five-tier structure for assessing fees on submarine cables systems, with larger systems paying more based on lit capacity, and a per gigabits per second (Gbps) assessment on active circuit capacity for terrestrial and satellite facilities.
18. In the
19. In 2020, the Commission adjusted the allocation of FTEs among GSO and NGSO space station and earth station operators. The Commission noted the disparity in number of units between GSO space stations (98) and NGSO systems (seven), and observed that many space stations can be operated under a single NGSO license while counting as a single unit for regulatory fee purposes, but only one satellite can be operated per GSO space station regulatory fee unit. To ensure that regulatory fees more closely reflect the work of FTEs' oversight and regulation for each category, the Commission allocated 80% of space station regulatory fees to GSOs and 20% of the space station regulatory fees to NGSOs.
20. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking attached to the
21. Several commenters disagree generally with creating NGSO subcategories, arguing that operators should not pay differing fees based on whether an NGSO system is “less complex.” Below, we discuss the NGSO subcategories and the allocation of the NGSO fees among the NGSO subcategories.
22. We reject commenters' arguments that we should not have adopted the “less complex” and “other” subcategories within the NGSO regulatory fee category. Our decision is based on the fact that commenters primarily rely on arguments that were fully considered and addressed as part of our decision in the Report and Order accompanying the
23. We also disagree with the contention that we “attached misplaced significance” to application processing costs in determining the amount of Commission resources used in the oversight and regulation of NGSO systems because we took into consideration processing round procedures in concluding that certain NGSO systems require fewer Commission resources. Section 9 of the Communications Act requires the Commission to recover, through regulatory fees, the total amount of its appropriation each year. The Commission must consider all FTE time costs in recovering its regulatory fees. We perform a holistic analysis of our regulation of NGSO systems and the FTE time accorded the oversight and regulation thereof, including rulemakings benefiting those systems, which are directly relevant for purposes of assessing regulatory fees. In so doing, we look at the overall FTE time spent in oversight and regulation of the types of NGSO systems and identify examples of proceedings involving certain NGSO systems.
24. Finally, we reject commenters' allegations that the consideration of earth stations is overly simplistic. Comparative complexity in earth station siting and licensing is not relevant to our analysis to determine whether an NGSO space system is less complex to regulate. Regulatory fees for earth stations are separately assessed from space stations fees. Although individual earth station applications may differ in terms of Commission resources required to process, those activities are not relevant to determine whether a space system planning to communicate with such an earth station is a complex system or not. Similarly, we disagree with arguments that space station systems communicating with larger numbers of earth stations are not likely to require more Commission oversight and regulatory activities. While an earth station blanket license application for technically-identical user terminals may in some instances be fairly easily processed, the ongoing activities associated with regulating the corresponding NGSO space station system will be more intensive, because the number of earth stations is an indicator that the space system itself is more complex. Furthermore, we also disagree with the contention that our consideration of numbers of earth stations presupposes that EESS systems require no more than 20 earth stations to support their network. Our experience has shown that authorized EESS systems typically communicate with fewer than 20 earth stations in the United States, and takes into account earth stations owned and operated by a third party that communicate with a particular NGSO system. As indicated, we are using “fewer than 20 earth stations” as a proxy and at the application stage, if we determine that a space system is planning to communicate with more than 20 earth stations based on the system design, such system design and plans would indicate that the space system would not fall into the “less complex” system category for regulatory fee purposes. Nothing in the record, or our analysis of the resources the International Bureau devotes to NGSO oversight and regulation, demonstrates that we erred in adopting an additional NGSO space station regulatory fee category for “less complex” NGSO systems.
25. We adopt our proposal from the
26. We find it premature to make a determination how the Commission's regulatory fees should apply to NGSO satellites operating as an integrated NGSO system, but authorized under multiple call signs. Several commenters to the
27. As proposed in the
28. Specifically, for FY 2021, we again waive section 1.1166 of our rules, to the extent necessary, to permit parties seeking regulatory fee waiver, deferral and/or installment payment relief for financial hardship reasons related to the pandemic. Those parties may make a single request for all forms of relief sought, whether in combination or in the alternative, and may submit all such requests for relief electronically to the Commission via a dedicated email address. For FY 2021, the email address is
29. Regulatees whose businesses have been hurt by the pandemic, but not to the extent required to receive a waiver, reduction, or deferral, may be eligible to pay their FY 2021 fees in installments under section 1.1914 of our rules. For those regulatees, we exercise our discretion under section 3717(a) of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, as amended, to reduce the interest rate the Commission charges on installments payments to a nominal rate and we suspend our down payment requirement. We also recognize that demonstrating financial hardship caused by the pandemic may require different financial documentation than the documentation the Commission has traditionally accepted. While the burden of proving financial hardship remains with the party requesting it, we again direct the Managing Director to work with individual regulatees that have filed requests if additional documents are needed to render a decision on the request. Finally, we direct the Managing Director to release one or more public notices describing in more detail the relief we have described herein.
We remind regulatees that we cannot relax the standard for granting a waiver or deferral of fees, penalties, or other charges for late payment of regulatory fees under section 9A of the Act. Under the statute, the Commission may only waive a regulatory fee, penalty or interest if it finds there is good cause for the waiver and that the waiver is in the public interest. The Commission has only granted financial hardship waivers when the requesting party has shown it “lacks sufficient funds to pay the regulatory fees and to maintain its service to the public.” Other statutory limitations include that the Commission must act on waiver requests individually, and cannot extend the deadline we set for payment of fees beyond September 30.
30. Included below are procedural items as well as our current payment and collection methods.
31.
32.
33.
34.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
35.
36. A carrier wishing to revise its telephone number (subscriber) count can do so by accessing Fee Filer and follow the prompts to revise their telephone number counts. Any revisions to the telephone number counts should be accompanied by an explanation or supporting documentation. The Commission will then review the revised count and supporting documentation and either approve or disapprove the submission in Fee Filer. If the submission is disapproved, the Commission will contact the provider to afford the provider an opportunity to discuss its revised subscriber count and/or provide additional supporting documentation. If we receive no response from the provider, or we do not reverse our initial disapproval of the provider's revised count submission, the fee payment must be based on the number of subscribers listed initially in Fee Filer. Once the timeframe for revision has passed, the telephone number counts are final and are the basis upon which CMRS regulatory fees are to be paid. Providers can view their final telephone counts online in Fee
37. Because some carriers do not file the NRUF report, they may not see their telephone number counts in Fee Filer. In these instances, the carriers should compute their fee payment using the standard methodology that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services (
38.
39.
40.
41.
In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2021, we adjusted FY 2020 payment units for each service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2021 payment liabilities. We obtained our updated estimates through a variety of means and sources. For example, we used Commission licensee data bases, actual prior year payment records and industry and trade association projections, when available. The databases we consulted include our Universal Licensing System (ULS), International Bureau Filing System (IBFS), Consolidated Database System (CDBS), Licensing and Management System (LMS) and Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS), as well as reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's
We sought verification for these estimates from multiple sources and, in all cases, we compared FY 2021 estimates with actual FY 2020 payment units to ensure that our revised estimates were reasonable. Where appropriate, we adjusted and/or rounded our final estimates to take into consideration the fact that certain variables that impact on the number of payment units cannot yet be estimated with sufficient accuracy. These include an unknown number of waivers and/or exemptions that may occur in FY 2021 and the fact that, in many services, the number of actual licensees or station operators fluctuates from time to time due to economic, technical, or other reasons. When we note, for example, that our estimated FY 2021 payment units are based on FY 2020 actual payment units, it does not necessarily mean that our FY 2021 projection is exactly the same number as in FY 2020. We have either rounded the FY 2020 number or adjusted it slightly to account for these variables.
For stations with nondirectional daytime antennas, the theoretical radiation was used at all azimuths. For stations with directional daytime antennas, specific information on each day tower, including field ratio, phase, spacing, and orientation was retrieved, as well as the theoretical pattern root-mean-square of the radiation in all directions in the horizontal plane (RMS) figure (milliVolt per meter (mV/m) @1 km) for the antenna system. The standard, or augmented standard if pertinent, horizontal plane radiation pattern was calculated using techniques and methods specified in sections 73.150 and 73.152 of the Commission's rules. Radiation values were calculated
The greater of the horizontal or vertical effective radiated power (ERP) (kW) and respective height above average terrain (HAAT) (m) combination was used. Where the antenna height above mean sea level (HAMSL) was available, it was used in lieu of the average HAAT figure to calculate specific HAAT figures for each of 360 radials under study. Any available directional pattern information was applied as well, to produce a radial-specific ERP figure. The HAAT and ERP figures were used in conjunction with the Field Strength (50-50) propagation curves specified in 47 CFR 73.313 of the Commission's rules to predict the distance to the principal community (70 dBu (decibel above 1 microVolt per meter) or 3.17 mV/m) contour for each of the 360 radials. The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2010 block centroids were contained in the polygon. The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area.
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was included in the
2. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts a regulatory fee schedule to collect $374,000,000 in congressionally required regulatory fees for fiscal year (FY) 2021. Under section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Communications Act or Act), regulatory fees are mandated by Congress and collected to recover the regulatory costs associated with the Commission's enforcement, policy and rulemaking, user information, and international activities in an amount that can be reasonably expected to equal the amount of the Commission's annual appropriation. The objective in the Report for adopting the regulatory fee schedule is to comply with the Congressional mandate to recover the total amount of the Commission's annual appropriation, from the various industries for which the Commission provides oversight or regulation, based on the number of full time employees (FTEs) involved in such oversight and regulation in the licensing bureaus.
3. None.
4. No comments were filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
5. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
6.
7. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2018, there were approximately 571,709 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
8. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 5ll governmental jurisdictions.”
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,377. Of this total, 1,258 stations (or about 91 percent) had revenues of $41.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on November 16, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational television stations to be 384. Notwithstanding, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities. There are also 2,300 low power television stations, including Class A stations (LPTV) and 3,681 TV translator stations. Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
21. In assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and its estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
22.
23. According to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC's Media Access Pro Radio Database as of January 2018, about 11,261 (or about 99.9 percent) of 11,383 commercial radio stations had revenues of $41.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial AM radio stations to be 4,633 stations and the number of commercial FM radio stations to be 6,738, for a total number of 11,371. We note the Commission has
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30. The U.S. Census Bureau defines
31. The U.S. Census Bureau defines
32.
33. The U.S. Census defines
34. The U.S. Census defines
35. In addition to the data contained in the four (see above) U.S. Census NAICS code categories that provide definitions of what services and functions the Carrier and Non-Carrier RespOrgs provide, Somos, the trade association that monitors RespOrg activities, compiled data showing that as of July 1, 2016 there were 23 RespOrgs operational in Canada and 436 RespOrgs operational in the United States, for a total of 459 RespOrgs currently registered with Somos.
36. This Report and Order does not adopt any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
37. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
38. The methodology adopted by the Commission for using the population-based calculations for TV broadcasters was initially adopted because it is a fairer methodology for the smaller broadcasters. The Commission is using this methodology for this year, too. The changes for Puerto Rican broadcasters were adopted by the Commission in order to give relief for these broadcasters, some of which may be small entities, and the Commission is also using this methodology this year. Finally, the waiver process that we adopted previously and are continuing in 2021 was adopted to provide relief to entities that have suffered financial hardship in the COVID-19 pandemic, which includes small entities.
39. In addition, under the Commission's de minimis rule, under section 9(e)(2) of the Act, a regulatee is exempt from paying regulatory fees if the sum total of all of its annual regulatory fee liabilities is $1,000 or less for the fiscal year. The de minimis threshold applies only to filers of annual regulatory fees.
40. Accordingly,
41.
42.
43.
Administrative practice and procedure, Broadband, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission 47 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, unless otherwise noted.
Authority to impose and collect regulatory fees is contained in section 9 of the Communications Act, as amended by sections 101-103 of title I of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141, 132 Stat. 1084), 47 U.S.C. 159, which directs the Commission to prescribe and collect annual regulatory fees to recover the cost of carrying out the functions of the Commission.
(a)
(b)
(2) The fee amount, per active Gbps circuit will be determined for each fiscal year.
(c)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes changes to its regulations for certifying a State's titling system for undocumented vessels to increase States' participation in the Vessel Identification System (VIS). The proposed changes would allow States that have adopted the recommendations of the model Uniform Certificate of Title Act for Vessels to certify their titling provisions with the Coast Guard. Once certified and participating in the VIS, a State is able to confer preferred mortgage status on financial instruments that apply to undocumented vessels, which benefits the owners of those vessels. While many of the proposed changes to the certification guidelines relate to the technical requirements of recording and maintaining titling documentation, the most significant change would be to implement a system of “branding” (permanently marking) titles for vessels that have sustained structural damage. This would help prevent a process known as “title washing,” where severe vessel damage is concealed by transferring the title to a different State.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before November 22, 2021. Comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information must reach OMB on or before November 22, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0160 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For information about this document call or email W. Vann Burgess, Boating Safety Division, Program Management and Operations Branch (CG-BSX-21), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1071, email
The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but will consider doing so if public comments indicate a meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate
The purpose of this rulemaking is to revise Coast Guard guidelines for State vessel titling systems so that they align with the Uniform Certificate of Title Act for Vessels (UCOTA-V). As discussed in more detail below, we expect that aligning Coast Guard guidelines with UCOTA-V would increase States' participation in the Vessel Identification System (VIS), thereby benefitting the owners of undocumented vessels by providing them access to preferred mortgages.
The legal basis for this rulemaking is Title 46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), sections 2103, 12501(a), and 31322(d). Section 2103 authorizes the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to issue regulations to carry out the provisions of Subtitle II, Vessels and Seamen, of Title 46 of the U.S.C., in which Section 12501(a) appears. Section 12501(a) requires the Secretary to establish a VIS
A mixture of both Federal and State laws govern the titling of vessels in the United States.
While the Federal Government does not title undocumented vessels, it does have an interest in certain aspects of policy that would ordinarily be covered by State titling requirements. Specifically, the Coast Guard has an interest in information about vessels and their owners for both law enforcement and maritime domain awareness purposes. For these reasons, pursuant to statute, the Coast Guard created the VIS, which is a centralized database of information relating to these subjects.
Under maritime law, a preferred mortgage is a mortgage that is filed—or perfected—in compliance with certain statutory requirements that are set forth in 46 U.S.C. 31321. A preferred mortgage creates a lien against the mortgaged vessel in the amount of the mortgage indebtedness (46 U.S.C. 31322 and 31325). A preferred mortgage is a perfected lien that has priority over certain other maritime liens and all non-maritime liens in an
To encourage States to participate in and share information with the VIS, the Coast Guard requires certification before maritime liens can be perfected. The guidelines that cover what a State must do to have its titling laws certified by the Coast Guard are located in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 187, and specifically in subpart D—State Vessel Titling Systems. In addition to the specific titling requirements, subpart D contains a requirement that the State must “comply with the VIS participation requirements of § 187.11 and subpart C of this part and make vessel information it collects available to VIS.”
Despite the incentive of being able to provide owners of undocumented vessels access to preferred mortgages, currently no States have titling laws that comply with the Coast Guard guidelines in subpart D. This is because of a conflict between the guidelines in subpart D and provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), specifically Articles 2 and 9, which govern the titling of property. Because most States rely on compliance with the UCC to facilitate an array of commercial transactions, they have been unable to modify their laws to comply with the Coast Guard's certification guidelines in subpart D.
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) drafted UCOTA-V
The NASBLA membership adopted UCOTA-V as a model act of the association at its annual business meeting in September 2011. Through one of its policy committees, NASBLA has continued to work with NCCUSL in promoting and supporting UCOTA-V adoption by the States. Currently, five States have adopted the act and five other States are at various stages of preparation to do so. The NCCUSL set forth several “principal objectives” when writing UCOTA-V. The objectives for UCOTA-V are to:
(1) Qualify as a State titling law that the Coast Guard will approve;
(2) Facilitate transfers of ownership of a vessel;
(3) Deter and impede the theft of vessels by making information about the ownership of vessels available to both government officials and those interested in acquiring an interest in a vessel;
(4) Accommodate existing financing arrangements for vessels;
(5) Work seamlessly with the UCC;
(6) Manage, to the extent possible, the complications that can arise from a vessel's transition in or out of Federal documentation;
(7) Provide clear rules on the consequences of compliance or noncompliance;
(8) Impose minimal or no new burdens or costs on State titling offices; and
(9) Protect buyers and others acquiring an interest in an undocumented vessel by requiring that the title for the vessel be branded if a casualty or sinking has caused significant damage to the vessel's hull integrity.
Various maritime interests recommended that the Coast Guard update its certification guidelines so that States that have adopted laws compliant with UCOTA-V can meet the certification guidelines. In 2014, the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC), a group established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to advise the Coast Guard, passed Resolution No. 2014-92-01 recommending that the Coast Guard initiate a rulemaking to revise subpart D based on UCOTA-V, for the following reasons:
(1) The well-conceived and well-drafted nature of UCOTA-V;
(2) The lack of State support for current subpart D;
(3) The interest in complying with a revised subpart D to obtain the benefits of preferred mortgages;
(4) Theft deterrence by facilitating interstate recovery of stolen vessels; and
(5) Facilitation of greater participation in the VIS.
In addition, NASBLA recommended the incorporation of UCOTA-V provisions as well. In response to an agency solicitation for regulatory reform proposals pursuant to Executive Order 13777 (Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda),
Based on the recommendations of these two organizations, as well as our desire to increase State participation in the VIS, the Coast Guard is proposing revisions to subpart D to allow for any State adopting titling laws in accordance with the guidelines in UCOTA-V to meet Coast Guard certification requirements. We discuss the specific proposed requirements for subpart D below.
For the reasons described above, this proposed rulemaking would revise subpart D of 33 CFR part 187 so that State titling laws modeled on UCOTA-V would meet the certification requirements of subpart D. We propose to replace the entire text of the existing subpart D with new guidelines that would accommodate States that adopt variants of the model code appropriate for their State commercial legal regimes. The Coast Guard is not proposing to incorporate UCOTA-V in its entirety because some sections of UCOTA-V are not applicable to the Federal Government. For example, included in UCOTA-V is a “savings clause” provision (see section 28 of UCOTA-V). Because the execution of the savings clause would be governed by State law applicable to vessel titling that existed prior to the adoption of UCOTA-V,
In short, so long as vessels have been properly registered through the State, the savings clause provision found in section 28 of UCOTA-V has no bearing on the Coast Guard's regulatory regime. Therefore, we are not including UCOTA-V's savings clause provision within this proposal. Instead, we are proposing certification guidelines that incorporate UCOTA-V, but with a number of policy or stylistic changes, such that the guidelines are flexible enough to allow for the variations in State law permitted by UCOTA-V.
In addition to the savings clause provision in section 28, the Coast Guard is proposing to omit the following sections of UCOTA-V that do not bear specifically on titling concerns.
The Coast Guard also proposes a variety of stylistic changes. First, we propose keeping the general numbering scheme of the text of UCOTA-V in regulatory text, replacing references to “Section X” with the appropriate citation to the equivalent regulatory section, subsection, or paragraph. We would also replace certain words such as “shall” with “must,” as provided by the Federal Plain Language Guidelines.
We provide a section-by-section discussion of the proposed certification guidelines below.
The definitions from UCOTA-V that we propose adding are as follows:
• Barge;
• Builder's certificate;
• Buyer;
• Cancel;
• Certificate of title;
• Electronic;
• Electronic certificate of title;
• Foreign-documented vessel;
• Good faith;
• Hull damaged;
• Lien creditor;
• Office;
• Owner of record;
• Purchase;
• Purchaser;
• Record;
• Secured party of record;
• Sign;
• State of principal operation;
• Title brand;
• Transfer of ownership;
• Vessel number; and
• Written certificate of title.
The Coast Guard developed this NPRM after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. We developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed rule to ascertain its probable impacts. A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
This RA provides an evaluation of the economic impacts associated with this proposed rule. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed rule's costs and benefits. The Coast Guard requests public comments on all aspects of the following analysis. In particular, the Coast Guard requests comments on the categories of unquantified costs and benefits and potential costs listed in Table 1 below.
This proposed rule has several goals. The Coast Guard intends to establish minimum requirements for States electing to become subpart D-compliant and to prescribe guidelines for State vessel titling systems. We also intend to provide guidance on how to obtain certification of compliance with State guidelines for vessel titling systems for the purpose of conferring preferred status on mortgages, instruments, or agreements under 46 U.S.C. 31322(d).
The proposed revisions would affect States that voluntarily seek to certify their State titling laws with the Coast Guard, pursuant to regulations under 33 CFR part 187, and to participate in the VIS. As such, the affected population for this proposed rule would include the 56 U.S. States.
The Coast Guard has been encouraging States to participate in the VIS since it has been in place in 2007, but some have chosen not to participate, primarily because of privacy laws regarding the sharing of personally identifiable information. The VIS comprises a nationwide information system for identifying recreational, commercial, and public vessels that are numbered. As of January 21, 2020, 38 States were participating in the VIS.
As described later, the benefits of this proposed rule would include increased uniformity across States in their titling laws. In turn, this would lead to a reduction in transaction costs, increased fraud prevention (insurance fraud and fraud from illegitimately owned vessels), increased consumer protection, a decrease in risk to lenders, the recovery and identification of abandoned vessels, and increased efficiencies for interstate commerce. Even through there is no new requirement in the proposed rule for vessel owners to report vessel damage to the VIS directly, the insurance company would be required to provide the information to the State if the owners make claims to repair the vessels. Once the States provide the vessel information to the VIS, the system can track the vessel information and share with other States if the repaired boats are sold as boats with no damage outside the State.
More specifically, transaction costs would be lower because consumers may be able to get preferred loans which have lower interest rates. Also, a buyer's administrative burden and costs when buying a vessel from a private party may be lessened because the buyer would not have to do extensive research to assure the vessel is being sold by the legitimate owner. In addition, some non-titling States require bonds when vessels are sold; this transaction cost may be eliminated with the adoption of UCOTA-V.
This proposed rule would potentially affect all 56 States. The affected population of the regulated public may be parsed by VIS participation and also by UCOTA-V adoption. As of January 21, 2020, 38 States were participating in the VIS,
The proposed rule would result in costs to the regulated public (State and territorial governments) and to the Coast Guard. Costs to the States may be divided between VIS compliance costs and UCOTA-V adoption (proposed subpart D compliance) costs. The proposed rule would not impose direct costs on vessel owners, as it would deter fraud by introducing penalties for providing false information. However, there is potential for indirect costs, as noted later.
Vessel owners are not required to take action as a result of the proposal. For example, this proposed rule does not require additional documentation from vessel owners. Transfer of title always requires a new title to be issued, which is common practice. There is no requirement other than a statement from the current owner declaring the vessel is, or has been, damaged. There is no other documentation required for proof of damage. There is no requirement for a statement from an insurer. This merely provides disclosure to a buyer.
The proposed changes of the NPRM would lead to changes in some States, which may have cost implications for vessel owners and the States. Below describes the potential costs to vessel owners as a direct or indirect result of this proposed rule.
The proposed rule would affect 56 States, all of which have vessel owners. In States that currently have a titling program for vessels, and that participate in the VIS, vessel owners would experience no incremental impact. In States with an existing titling program, vessel owners would be affected if the State changes or imposes additional fees through their legislative or regulatory process. States that are compliant with UCOTA-V (proposed subpart D) report that they did not impose any additional fees after the adoption of UCOTA-V provisions, and, according to the Coast Guard's Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety (BSX), no State has signaled the intent to increase titling fees if their system becomes certified as UCOTA-V compliant. However, the Coast Guard cannot definitively conclude that recreational vessel owners would not face a cost increase as an indirect effect of these proposed changes. Nonetheless, we have not computed a cost due to the proposal to vessel owners in States with a titling system, due to the uncertainty of a potential cost increase.
In States without a vessel titling program, recreational vessel owners may experience a cost increase because of this proposed rule. These States have not indicated to the Coast Guard how they would handle existing vessels once they have established a titling system. Existing vessels may be grandfathered in and permitted to be titled voluntarily by the owner, or States may require all vessel owners to obtain a title. A review of websites for States with a titling program demonstrated that the cost of vessel titles are generally $50 or less.
No further action would be required by vessel owners. Vessel owners do not need to renumber their vessels as a result of the proposed rule, since existing hull numbers are unrelated to titling. No equipment is required by vessel owners for compliance.
Table 2 below summarizes this section detailing potential costs of the proposed rule. All are considered indirect costs, as they are costs that may be imposed by the State on vessel owners as a result of the proposed rule, but not mandated by the rule itself.
There are other potential costs of the rule detailed in future section. For a comprehensive list of all potential costs, please refer to Table 1.
We estimate that the Government costs associated with this regulatory action would be labor costs for the Coast Guard to: (1) Process MOAs from the States; (2) coordinate with States; and (3) update the Coast Guard website. No additional equipment would be needed to perform these tasks under the proposed rule.
In order to process an MOA, it is first transmitted from the States to a Coast Guard compliance officer in BSX and then to the Commandant (or designee) for approval. To coordinate with the States, a Coast Guard compliance officer would engage with and respond to inquiries from the States. The Coast Guard estimates that a Coast Guard compliance officer would spend 0.25 hour to process an MOA from a State and another 0.25 hour to transmit it to the Commandant (or designee) for approval. The Commandant or designee would spend 0.2 hour to approve an MOA (Cost = Count of MOAs × [(0.5 hour × Compliance officer's wage rate) + (0.2 hour × Commandant's wage rate)]).
As a result of this proposal, we estimate that the Coast Guard would need to engage with, respond to inquiries, and coordinate with States regarding VIS participation and UCOTA-V compliance. Eighteen States are not in the VIS We estimate that a Coast Guard compliance officer would need to coordinate with each of these States for VIS participation.
Lastly, the Coast Guard would need to update its website with information on this proposed rule. We estimate that 1 hour would be needed by a computer technician and an additional 0.25 hour for a compliance officer to supervise and approve the update. This is a one-time task that is expected to occur in the first year of the final rule's enactment (Cost = [(0.25 hour × Coast Guard compliance officer's wage rate) + (1 hour × Federal computer technician's wage rate)]).
Compliance with the proposed rule would require a variety of tasks by the regulated public. This section documents the Coast Guard's assessment of the proposed rule's changes and the steps States would need to take as a result. Not all tasks would need to be carried out by all the States. In this section, the Coast Guard notes first the tasks that apply to all States. Next are the tasks that result from the proposed rule. We split these tasks into categories to better calculate the costs, since some tasks apply to some States and others apply to other States, depending on their current level of compliance with existing rules.
Below is a list of all costs to the regulated public:
All 56 States would need to be familiarized with the proposed rule and complete the task of reviewing the State's website. Upon review of the State's procedures and websites, some States may need to make updates. These are discussed in more detail below.
The Coast Guard estimates that States would spend 0.5 hour to become familiarized with the proposed rule.
Although not explicitly required, some States may send email notifications or a press release to interested parties (
Based on BSX data,
The 16 States that have initiated VIS activity, but do not have a signed MOA with the Coast Guard, would need to complete the following steps for an MOA. In order to comply, States would incur costs to: (1) Coordinate with the Coast Guard for data transfer; (2) prepare and submit a completed MOA and participation form; and (3) engage in coordination activities to complete a new user request form.
All the VIS-participating States would engage in activities to upload data to the VIS. However, according to Info-Link Technologies,
New VIS participants would need to complete the new user request form. We estimate that it would take 0.1 hour to complete the form. These estimates are based on data provided by Info-Link Technologies and the Coast Guard's Collection of Information entitled “Vessel Identification System,” OMB Control Number: 1625-0070.
Lastly, two States would have to address legislative conflicts with existing privacy laws that complicate or prevent VIS participation. We estimate that such a task would require that a manager to negotiate the changes with a State legislative committee. An attorney would draft the legislation. Unlike UCOTA-V, which has uniform legislation to follow for each State, privacy law amendments may take more time to develop. Therefore, we estimate that a manager would spend 40 hours to negotiate legislative changes. Another 40 hours would be spent by an attorney to draft the legislative language. State laws are often voted in blocks and the labor to put the amended privacy legislation forward and to vote on it is considered to be unseverable. For that reason, we have not estimated a cost for this step. However, the Coast Guard would like to request comments from the public on any information regarding the estimated cost to draft and negotiate legislative changes. Presently, we use our current estimates for drafting and negotiating these changes but omit the cost of labor to put forward and vote on the legislation.
We computed a cost to transmit VIS data to the Coast Guard for 18 States on the basis that States may correspond with the Coast Guard to initiate the data transfer or may have issues in their computer systems preventing automatic data transfer. In the event that this occurs, the State may send spreadsheets to the Coast Guard, and a technician contracted to the Coast Guard would upload the data. However, we acknowledge that this is already a task under existing regulations and, in most cases, data is automatically transmitted.
We base our cost estimates on all 56 States choosing to adopt UCOTA-V. As of January 16, 2020, five States have adopted UCOTA-V, and five States are developing legislation to become UCOTA-V-compliant.
Currently, 47 States have not adopted UCOTA-V nor initiated legislation to adopt UCOTA-V. The cost analysis of UCOTA-V adoption focuses solely on these 47 States. In order to comply with the proposed rule, States would need to develop legislation and amend their computer systems to comport with UCOTA-V. As noted earlier, all States would post information on their website about this rulemaking; that task appears in a preceding section of this analysis.
In order to develop UCOTA-V legislation,
States adopting UCOTA-V would need to update their procedures and websites to reflect the resulting changes. We estimate that 5 hours would be spent by a State manager to review and edit State procedures, manuals, policy documents and other information (Cost = (47 States × 5 hours × State manager's wage rate).
The remaining UCOTA-V compliance costs items would be: (1) Labor for a manager to coordinate with the Coast Guard to ensure the State's program meets UCOTA-V certification requirements (Cost = 47 States × (0.5 hour × State manager's wage rate)); (2) labor for an administrative assistant and a manager to assist with the conversion or update to a subpart D-compliant system (Cost = 47 States × [(0.25 hour × administrative assistant's wage rate) + (0.75 hour × State manager's wage rate)]); (3) labor for a manager to oversee conversion to a subpart D-compliant system (Cost = 47 States × 0.25 hour × State manager's wage rate); and (4) labor for a software developer to convert the system to a subpart D compliant system (Cost = 47 States × (12.6 hours × computer technician's wage rate)). These tasks and their calculations are shown in table 6.
For the 7 States that do not have an existing titling program, the labor tasks for amending State's computers to comport with UCOTA-V would be greater. We estimate that 24 hours would be spent by a computer technician in these States to amend the State's computers to comport with UCOTA-V, and that a manager would spend another 0.5 hour to review and approve the work. The Coast Guard requests comments from States on their assessment of tasks and costs that would result from the proposed rule.
BSX routinely contacts States regarding their vessel titling systems. There are currently 45 States titling vessels and 1 State that makes titling optional.
Coast Guard personnel attended the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators Workshop held in Lexington, KY from 23 to 28 February 2020. Approximately 40 boating administrators from the States were in attendance, and 4 stated they were contemplating adopting UCOTA-V. The four states are Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, and South Carolina. None of these 4 states have conducted a complete cost analysis, but the initial projected cost ranged from minimal to about $8,000.
The primary changes required would include the ability to mark a title as “branded,” and to add any numbered vessels that are not currently required to be titled. For example, Virginia adopted UCOTA-V and reprogrammed their system to accept the “branded” designation. According to the State of Virginia's Boating Law Administrator
The remaining 11 States that do not currently title vessels do title vehicles, and their vehicle titling systems could add vessels. As an example, Connecticut (previously a non-titling State) adopted UCOTA-V and its Department of Motor Vehicles began issuing titles for vessels.
The 10 States that have adopted or have begun adopting the UCOTA-V model have engaged in the tasks noted in this text as costs of compliance. For example, they have already collaborated with the Coast Guard regarding their vessel titling system updates. These States would not incur additional costs because they elected to adopt the UCOTA-V model prior to this regulation. These States would not require the use of a computer technician to upgrade the computer system because the conversion has taken place already. No further actions would be needed by States in this situation. As noted earlier, these States would already be familiar with and would have reviewed their existing procedures as a result of the rulemaking. The Coast Guard invites comments on any additional costs that would be incurred by States that are currently (pre-proposal) in the process of adopting UCOTA-V.
We discuss the derivation of cost data in the following paragraphs. We estimate the approximate loaded hourly labor rates of State employees as follows: Manager ($94.30); administrative assistant ($33.81); computer technician ($67.98); and lawyer ($124.57). The loaded wage factor is 1.74 for non-managerial State workers and 1.56 for managers at the State level, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. See table 7 for details.
For all provisions with costs to the Government, we use publicly available data found on OPM's website under “Policy, Data, and Oversight” and in the Congressional Budget Office's report, “Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to 2015.” We estimate labor costs attributed to the Government Coast Guard compliance officers, GS-14 managers, GS-13 computer technicians, and the Commandant. We estimate the fully loaded labor costs for a GS-13 and GS-14 compliance officer at $71.03 and $79.48 respectively.
For positions outside the Coast Guard, we use publicly available data from the BLS Occupational Compensation Survey to estimate wage rates for State and local positions that would be impacted by the proposed rule. We present the estimated wage rates and a summary of the data for the proposed rule in table 8.
We estimate the costs in this RA in 2020 dollars based on BLS wage rates. We estimate the total cost for States to be $182,607, undiscounted (not including Government costs). We estimate the total Government costs associated with this proposed rule to be $14,537. We show the summary of compliance costs in Table 9.
Using a 7-percent discount rate, we estimate the total discounted cost of the proposed rule to be $138,490 (rounded). The total annualized cost at a 7-percent discount rate is $19,718 (rounded). See table 10.
For the projected cost to the regulated public, the Coast Guard expects all States would comply within 10 years of this rule. However, we do not have specific information as to the rate of compliance. As such, we assume equal probability for each year; that is, we estimate 10 percent will comply each year for the next 10 years. Given this, the total cost to the regulated public, as shown in the table 9, is $182,607. This is $18,261 (rounded) when averaged across 10 years.
For the cost to the Government, we assume that the $91 website update will occur in the first year. Subtracting that, we calculate the annual cost over the next 9 years by dividing the total by 10 ($1,445). The first year cost to Government will be $1,445 + $91, which is $1,536.
The proposed rule would amend the Coast Guard's existing regulations (see 33 CFR 187 subpart D, “Guidelines for State Vessel Titling Systems”) to better align with UCOTA-V. The proposed rule would encourage uniformity amongst the States through the adoption of the UCOTA-V model, in its entirety or in part, and, as mentioned in the Background section of this NPRM, Section IV, it would follow recommendations by the NBSAC and NASBLA. Although the movement to harmonize State titling laws has existed for some time, not all States have pursued legislation. Some States have chosen to wait for the Coast Guard to pass the UCOTA-V regulation.
The proposal would also promote consumer protection against fraud. A large number of recreational vessels are resold annually. In 2017, there were approximately 981,600 pre-owned vessels sold in the United States.
The proposed rule would facilitate the procurement of secured loans on vessels. If the Coast Guard does not certify a State titling system, then a State cannot confer preferred mortgage status on a mortgage or security interest for a vessel, which functions as a security measure for financial entities. Many financial institutions require eligible vessels to be documented and to have their preferred mortgages recorded. A preferred mortgage is considered more secure, with less risk to the lender. This places the lender in a position to provide lower interest rates over longer terms to the consumer. In turn, the lender earns more over the term of the loan with less risk. More specifically, the lender would have a lower risk of loans defaulting; therefore, the lender's loan portfolio would provide better returns despite the lower interest rates offered to borrowers.
The consumer would benefit as well. With preferred loans, the borrower would have a loan with better terms. Relative to non-preferred loan, the consumer would pay less per month due to the lower interest rate on preferred loans.
In addition, consistent titling procedures across States would deter the practice of “title washing,” whereby after the sale of a damaged vessel for salvage, the buyer makes cosmetic repairs and resells the vessel without disclosing its previous damage. Recreational boaters may benefit from this proposed rule by being able to assist States and law enforcement in recovering their lost or stolen vessels.
Additionally, we intend the proposed rule to promote maritime security by facilitating State participation in the VIS. After the September 2001 terrorist attacks, a Coast Guard gap analysis showed that law enforcement agencies, including the Coast Guard, lacked the ability to easily and verifiably identify recreational vessels and their owners and operators, especially when a vessel is registered in a State other than that in which the law enforcement agency operates. This inability deprives law enforcement agencies of critical tools for deterring crime and maritime-based terrorism.
Since its inception in 2007, the VIS has remedied this inability by collecting and providing verifiable data for vessels in VIS-participating States. However, 16 States still do not participate in the VIS.
Alternative 1—Take no action. This alternative would allow existing regulations to remain in conflict with State laws and UCOTA-V. For States complying with the existing regulations, this alternative would result in them not receiving the benefits of deterred “title washing,” recovery and identification of abandoned vessels, consumer fraud protection, and security measures for financial entities. Participation in the VIS would continue at its current low rate. This alternative would result in no additional costs, as no new regulations would be implemented, but would also result in no benefits, as there would be no changes to current practice. Therefore, we rejected this alternative.
Alternative 2—This is the preferred alternative. This alternative would change the guidelines in subpart D so that any State that adopts UCOTA-V and participates in the VIS would be in compliance. This would encourage compliance and participation and provide benefits to States, lenders, and consumers. The cost implications associated with this alternative are specified in the Costs section of this RA and assume 100 percent participation from all 56 States. The total 7 percent discounted cost over 10 years would be $176,570. The qualitative benefits would be increased mitigation of fraudulent ownership, the creation of uniformity amongst the States, which will help facilitate transfers of vessel ownership, to deter theft of vessels and aid law enforcement agencies by making recovery of stolen vessels across State lines easier, promote consumer protection, and facilitate making secured loans on vessels. Therefore, this is the preferred alternative.
Alternative 3—This alternative would repeal existing guidelines for certification of State titling requirements and allow States to regulate vessel titling with no coordination or oversight. This would remove the ability for States to establish separate programs to enable vessels to gain preferred mortgage status and discourage participation in the VIS. In this scenario, each State would have a unique vessel titling system; this alternative would produce varying costs and benefits, which may be beneficial to the States as they could customize a titling program to meet their specific needs. However, we are unable to estimate the costs due to the number of possibilities offered, and they would occur without coordination or oversight from the Coast Guard. Harmonization of regulations across States would be impossible. As this would not satisfy the goals of this potential regulatory action, we rejected this alternative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA) and Executive Order 13272 (Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking) require a review of proposed and final rules to assess their impacts on small entities. An agency must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under the RFA, we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Based on the analysis above, this proposed rule would affect 56 States and U.S.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to docket at the address in the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person in the
This proposed rule would require a modification of an existing collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), “collection of information” comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar actions. The title and description of the information collection, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this proposed rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information to help us determine, among other things:
(1) How useful the information is;
(2) Whether it can help us perform our functions better;
(3) Whether it is readily available elsewhere;
(4) How accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
(5) How valid our methods for determining burden are;
(6) How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and
(7) How we can minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit them to both the OMB and to the docket where indicated under
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this proposed rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to collect this information.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to revise Coast Guard requirements for State participation in the Coast Guard-maintained VIS and guidelines for State vessel titling systems. The Coast Guard is mandated to establish and maintain the VIS, but State participation in the VIS is voluntary. Nothing in this proposed rule would require States to participate in the VIS. However, once electing to participate in the VIS, a State must comply with the VIS requirements to ensure integrity and uniformity of information. Likewise, requesting certification that a State vessel titling system complies with the guidelines is also voluntary, but such a system must comply with subpart D for voluntary certification. This proposed rule would not require States to request certification, change their existing titling systems, or otherwise preempt related State regulations. Therefore, the proposed rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in Executive Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights).
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) (2) of Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice Reform), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
This proposed rule would be categorically excluded under paragraphs L54 and L57 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations which are editorial or procedural and L57 pertains to regulations concerning documentation of vessels. This proposed rule involves changes to regulations for certifying a State's titling system for undocumented vessels. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 187 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 2103, 12501, 31322; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(92).
As used in this part—
(1) A creditor that has acquired a lien on the vessel by attachment, levy, or the like;
(2) An assignee for benefit of creditors from the time of assignment;
(3) A trustee in bankruptcy from the date of the filing of the petition; or
(4) A receiver in equity from the time of appointment.
(1) In whose favor a security interest is created or provided for under a security agreement, whether or not any obligation to be secured is outstanding;
(2) Who is a consignor under State law as prescribed by State law related to security interests in goods; or
(3) Who holds a security interest arising under State law related to security interests in goods.
(1) Make or adopt a tangible symbol; or
(2) Attach to or logically associate with the record an electronic symbol, sound, or process.
(1) A seaplane;
(2) An amphibious vehicle for which a certificate of title is issued pursuant to a state's motor vehicle certificate of title act or a similar statute of another state;
(3) Watercraft that operate only on a permanently fixed, manufactured course and the movement of which is restricted to or guided by means of a mechanical device to which the watercraft is attached or by which the watercraft is controlled;
(4) A stationary floating structure that—
(i) Does not have and is not designed to have a mode of propulsion of its own;
(ii) Is dependent for utilities upon a continuous utility hookup to a source originating on shore; and
(iii) Has a permanent, continuous hookup to a shore side sewage system.
(5) Watercraft owned by the United States, a State, or a foreign government or a political subdivision of any of them; and
(6) Watercraft used solely as a lifeboat on another watercraft.
The Commandant, under 46 U.S.C. 31322(d)(1)(A) and 33 CFR 187.13, will certify a State whose vessel titling system meets the requirements of this subpart as eligible to have security interests that are perfected under its law deemed preferred mortgages under 46 U.S.C. 31322. The State must also comply with the VIS participation requirements of 33 CFR 187.11 and subpart C of this part and make vessel information it collects available to the VIS.
(a) A State must define the terms “certificate of origin”, “dealer”, “documented vessel”, “issuing authority”, “manufacturer”, “owner”, “person”, “secured party”, “security interest”, “titling authority”, and “vessel” substantially as defined in 33 CFR 187.7.
(b) In addition to the definitions in 33 CFR 187.7, a State must also define the following terms as prescribed by State law related to security interests in goods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(c) The definitions in 33 CFR 187.7 and paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to any State or Federal law governing licensing, numbering, or registration if the same term is used in that law.
Subject to a savings clause provided under state law, this subpart applies to any transaction, certificate of title, or record relating to a vessel, even if the transaction, certificate of title, or record was entered into or created before the effective date of the state law.
A State must require that all vessels required to be numbered in the State under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 123 be titled only in that State, if that State issues titles to that class of vessels.
(a) The local law of the State under whose certificate of title a vessel is covered governs all issues relating to the certificate from the time the vessel becomes covered by the certificate until the vessel becomes covered by another certificate or becomes a documented vessel, even if no other relationship exists between the State and the vessel or its owner.
(b) A vessel becomes covered by a certificate of title when an application for the certificate and the applicable fee are delivered to the office in accordance with this subpart or to the governmental agency that creates a certificate in another jurisdiction in accordance with the law of that jurisdiction.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the owner of a vessel must deliver to the office of the State in which the vessel is principally used an application for a certificate of title for the vessel, with the applicable fee, not later than 20 days after the later of—
(1) The date of a transfer of ownership; or
(2) The date the State becomes the State of principal use.
(b) An application for a certificate of title is not required for—
(1) A documented vessel;
(2) A foreign-documented vessel;
(3) A barge;
(4) A vessel before delivery if the vessel is under construction or completed pursuant to contract; or
(5) A vessel held by a dealer for sale or lease.
(c) The office may not issue, transfer, or renew a certificate of number for a vessel issued pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12301 unless it has created a certificate of title for the vessel or an application for a certificate for the vessel and the applicable fee have been delivered to the office.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in §§ 187.310, 187.315, 187.319, 187.320, 187.321, and 187.322, only an owner may apply for a certificate of title.
(b) An application for a certificate of title must be signed by the applicant and contain—
(1) The applicant's name, the street address of the applicant's principal residence, and, if different, the applicant's mailing address;
(2) The name and mailing address of each other owner of the vessel;
(3) The social security number or taxpayer identification number of each owner;
(4) The hull identification number (HIN) for the vessel or, if none, an application for the issuance of a HIN for the vessel;
(5) The vessel number for the vessel or, if none issued by the office, an application for a vessel number;
(6) A description of the vessel as required by the office, which must include—
(i) The official number for the vessel, if any, assigned by the Coast Guard;
(ii) The name of the manufacturer, builder, or maker;
(iii) The model year or the year in which the manufacture or build of the vessel was completed;
(iv) The overall length of the vessel;
(v) The vessel type, as described in 33 CFR 174.19;
(vi) The hull material, as described in 33 CFR 174.19;
(vii) The propulsion type, as described in 33 CFR 174.19;
(viii) The engine drive type, as described in 33 CFR 174.19, if any; and
(ix) The fuel type, as described in 33 CFR 174.19, if any;
(7) An indication of all security interests in the vessel known to the applicant and the name and mailing address of each secured party;
(8) A statement that the vessel is not a documented vessel or a foreign-documented vessel;
(9) Any title brand known to the applicant and, if known, the jurisdiction under whose law the title brand was created;
(10) If the applicant knows that the vessel is hull damaged, a statement that the vessel is hull damaged;
(11) If the application is made in connection with a transfer of ownership, the transferor's name, street address, and, if different, mailing address, the sales price, if any, and the date of the transfer; and
(12) If the vessel was previously registered or titled in another jurisdiction, a statement identifying each jurisdiction known to the applicant in which the vessel was registered or titled.
(c) In addition to the information required by paragraph (b) of this section, an application for a certificate of title may contain an electronic communication address of the owner, transferor, or secured party.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in §§ 187.319, 187.320, 187.321, and 187.322, an application for a certificate of title must be accompanied by a certificate of title signed by the owner shown on the certificate which identifies the applicant as the owner of the vessel, or is accompanied by a record that identifies the applicant as the owner.
(e) If there is no certificate of title as discussed in paragraph (d) of this section, an application for a certificate of title must be accompanied by—
(1) If the vessel was a documented vessel, a record issued by the Coast Guard that shows the vessel is no longer a documented vessel and identifies the applicant as the owner;
(2) If the vessel was a foreign-documented vessel, a record issued by the foreign country which shows the vessel is no longer a foreign-documented vessel and identifies the applicant as the owner; or
(3) In all other cases, a certificate of origin, bill of sale, or other record that to the satisfaction of the office identifies the applicant as the owner.
(f) A record submitted in connection with an application is part of the application and the office must maintain it in its files.
(g) The office may require an application for a certificate of title to be accompanied by payment or evidence of payment of all fees and taxes payable by the applicant under State law if in connection with the application or the acquisition or use of the vessel.
(a) Unless an application for a certificate of title is rejected under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, the office must create a certificate for the vessel in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section not later than 20 days after delivery to it of an application that complies with 33 CFR 187.307.
(b) If the office creates electronic certificates of title, it must create an electronic certificate unless in the application the secured party of record or, if none, the owner of record, requests that the office create a written certificate.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the office may reject an application for a certificate of title only if—
(1) The application does not comply with 33 CFR 187.307;
(2) The application does not contain documentation sufficient for the office to determine whether the applicant is entitled to a certificate;
(3) There is a reasonable basis for concluding that the application is fraudulent or issuance of a certificate would facilitate a fraudulent or illegal act; or
(4) The application does not comply with State law.
(d) The office must reject an application for a certificate of title for a vessel that is a documented vessel or a foreign-documented vessel.
(e) The office may cancel a certificate of title created by it only if the office—
(1) Could have rejected the application for the certificate under paragraph (c) of this section;
(2) Is required to cancel the certificate under another provision of this subpart; or
(3) Receives satisfactory evidence that the vessel is a documented vessel or a foreign-documented vessel.
(a) A certificate of title must contain—
(1) The date the certificate was created;
(2) The name of the owner of record and, if not all owners are listed, an indication that there are additional owners indicated in the files of the office;
(3) The mailing address of the owner of record;
(4) The hull identification number (HIN);
(5) The information listed in § 187.307(b)(6);
(6) Except as otherwise provided in § 187.315(b), the name and mailing address of the secured party of record, if any, and if not all secured parties are listed, an indication that there are other security interests indicated in the files of the office; and
(7) All title brands indicated in the files of the office covering the vessel, including brands indicated on a certificate created by a governmental agency of another jurisdiction and delivered to the office.
(b) This subpart does not preclude the office from noting on a certificate of title the name and mailing address of a secured party that is not a secured party of record.
(c) For each title brand indicated on a certificate of title, the certificate must identify the jurisdiction under whose law the title brand was created or the jurisdiction that created the certificate on which the title brand was indicated. If the meaning of a title brand is not easily ascertainable or cannot be accommodated on the certificate, the certificate may state: “Previously branded in (insert the jurisdiction under whose law the title brand was created or whose certificate of title previously indicated the title brand).”
(d) If the files of the office indicate that a vessel was previously registered or titled in a foreign country, the office must indicate on the certificate of title that the vessel was registered or titled in that country.
(e) A written certificate of title must contain a form that all owners indicated on the certificate may sign to evidence consent to a transfer of an ownership interest to another person. The form must include a certification, signed under penalty of perjury, that the statements made are true and correct to the best of each owner's knowledge, information, and belief.
(f) A written certificate of title must contain a form for the owner of record to indicate, in connection with a transfer of an ownership interest, that the vessel is hull damaged.
(a) Unless paragraph (c) of this section applies, at or before the time the owner of record transfers an ownership interest in a hull-damaged vessel that is covered by a certificate of title created by the office, if the damage occurred while that person was an owner of the vessel and the person has notice of the damage at the time of the transfer, the owner must—
(1) Deliver to the office an application for a new certificate that complies with
(2) Indicate on the certificate in the place designated for that purpose that the vessel is hull damaged and deliver the certificate to the transferee.
(b) Not later than 20 days after delivery to the office of the application under paragraph (a)(1) of this section or the certificate of title under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the office must create a new certificate that indicates that the vessel is branded “Hull Damaged”.
(c) Before an insurer transfers an ownership interest in a hull-damaged vessel that is covered by a certificate of title created by the office, the insurer must deliver to the office an application for a new certificate that complies with § 187.306 and includes the title brand designation “Hull Damaged”. Not later than 20 days after delivery of the application to the office, the office must create a new certificate that indicates that the vessel is branded “Hull Damaged”.
(d) An owner of record who fails to comply with paragraph (a) of this section, a person who solicits or colludes in a failure by an owner of record to comply with paragraph (a), or an insurer that fails to comply with paragraph (c) of this section is subject to penalty as prescribed by state law.
(a) For each record relating to a certificate of title submitted to the office, the office must—
(1) Ascertain or assign the hull identification number (HIN) for the vessel in accordance with 33 CFR part 181;
(2) Maintain the HIN and all the information submitted with the application pursuant to § 187.307(b) to which the record relates, including the date and time the record was delivered to the office;
(3) Maintain the files for public inspection subject to paragraph (e) of this section; and
(4) Index the files of the office as required by paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The office must maintain in its files the information contained in all certificates of title created under this subpart. The information in the files of the office must be searchable by the HIN of the vessel, the vessel number, the name of the owner of record, and any other method used by the office.
(c) The office must maintain in its files, for each vessel for which it has created a certificate of title, all title brands known to the office, the name of each secured party known to the office, the name of each person known to the office to be claiming an ownership interest, and all stolen-property reports the office has received.
(d) Upon request, for safety, security, or law-enforcement purposes, the office must provide to Federal, State, or local government the information in its files relating to any vessel for which the office has issued a certificate of title.
(e) Except as otherwise provided by laws of the titling State, the information required under § 187.309 is a public record, but the information provided under § 187.307(b)(3) is not a public record.
(a) On creation of a written certificate of title, the office must promptly send the certificate to the secured party of record or, if none, to the owner of record, at the address indicated for that person in the files of the office. On creation of an electronic certificate of title, the office must promptly send a record evidencing the certificate to the owner of record and, if there is one, to the secured party of record, at the address indicated for that person in the files of the office. The office may send the record to the person's mailing address or, if indicated in the files of the office, an electronic address.
(b) If the office creates a written certificate of title, any electronic certificate of title for the vessel is canceled and replaced by the written certificate. The office must maintain in the files of the office the date and time of cancellation.
(c) Before the office creates an electronic certificate of title, any written certificate for the vessel must be surrendered to the office. If the office creates an electronic certificate, the office must destroy or otherwise cancel the written certificate for the vessel that has been surrendered to the office and maintain in the files of the office the date and time of destruction or other cancellation. If a written certificate being canceled is not destroyed, the office must indicate on the face of the certificate that it has been canceled.
A certificate of title is
Possession of a certificate of title does not by itself provide a right to obtain possession of a vessel. Garnishment, attachment, levy, replevin, or other judicial process against the certificate is not effective to determine possessory rights to the vessel. This subpart does not prohibit enforcement under State law, other than this subpart (33 CFR part 187 subpart D), of a security interest in, levy on, or foreclosure of a statutory or common-law lien on a vessel. Absence of an indication of a statutory or common-law lien on a certificate does not invalidate the lien.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section or a savings clause provided under state law, a security interest in a vessel may be perfected only by delivery to the office of an application for a certificate of title that identifies the secured party and otherwise complies with 33 CFR 187.307. The security interest is perfected on the later of delivery to the office of the application and the applicable fee or attachment of the security interest as prescribed by State law related to security interests in goods.
(b) If the interest of a person named as owner, lessor, consignor, or bailor in an application for a certificate of title delivered to the office is a security interest, the application sufficiently identifies the person as a secured party. Identification on the application for a certificate of a person as owner, lessor, consignor, or bailor is not by itself a factor in determining whether the person's interest is a security interest.
(c) If the office has created a certificate of title for a vessel, a security interest in the vessel may be perfected by delivery to the office of an application, on a form the office may require, to have the security interest added to the certificate. The application must be signed by an owner of the vessel or by the secured party and must include—
(1) The name of the owner of record;
(2) The name and mailing address of the secured party;
(3) The hull identification number for the vessel; and
(4) If the office has created a written certificate of title for the vessel, the certificate.
(d) A security interest perfected under paragraph (c) of this section is perfected on the later of delivery to the office of the application and all applicable fees or attachment of the security interest as prescribed by State law related to security interests in goods.
(e) On delivery of an application that complies with paragraph (c) of this section and payment of all applicable fees, the office must create a new certificate of title pursuant to 33 CFR
(f) If a secured party assigns a perfected security interest in a vessel, the receipt by the office of a statement providing the name of the assignee as secured party is not required to continue the perfected status of the security interest against creditors of and transferees from the original debtor. Upon obtaining a release from the secured party indicated in the files of the office or on the certificate, a purchaser of a vessel subject to a security interest takes free of the security interest and of the rights of a transferee unless the transfer is indicated in the files of the office or on the certificate.
(g) This section does not apply to a security interest—
(1) Created in a vessel by a person during any period in which the vessel is inventory held for sale or lease by the person or is leased by the person as lessor if the person is in the business of selling vessels;
(2) In a barge for which no application for a certificate of title has been delivered to the office; or
(3) In a vessel before delivery if the vessel is under construction, or completed, pursuant to contract and for which no application for a certificate has been delivered to the office.
(h) This paragraph applies if a certificate of documentation for a documented vessel is deleted or canceled. If a security interest in the vessel was valid immediately before deletion or cancellation against a third party as a result of compliance with 42 U.S.C. 31321, the security interest is and remains perfected until the earlier of 4 months after cancellation of the certificate or the time the security interest becomes perfected under this subpart.
(i) A security interest in a vessel arising under State law related to security interests in goods is perfected when it attaches but becomes unperfected when the debtor obtains possession of the vessel, unless before the debtor obtains possession the security interest is perfected pursuant to paragraph (a) or (c) of this section.
(j) A security interest in a vessel as proceeds of other collateral is perfected to the extent provided in State law.
(k) A security interest in a vessel perfected under the law of another jurisdiction is perfected to the extent provided in State law.
(a) A secured party indicated in the files of the office as having a security interest in a vessel must deliver a termination statement to the office and, on the debtor's request, to the debtor, by the earlier of—
(1) Twenty days after the secured party receives a signed demand from an owner for a termination statement and there is no obligation secured by the vessel subject to the security interest and no commitment to make an advance, incur an obligation, or otherwise give value secured by the vessel; or
(2) If the vessel is consumer goods, 30 days after there is no obligation secured by the vessel and no commitment to make an advance, incur an obligation, or otherwise give value secured by the vessel.
(b) If a written certificate of title has been created and delivered to a secured party and a termination statement is required under paragraph (a) of this section, the secured party, not later than the date required by paragraph (a), must deliver the certificate to the debtor or to the office with the statement. If the certificate is lost, stolen, mutilated, destroyed, or is otherwise unavailable or illegible, the secured party must deliver with the statement, not later than the date required by paragraph (a), an application for a replacement certificate meeting the requirements of 33 CFR 187.322.
(c) On delivery to the office of a termination statement authorized by the secured party, the security interest to which the statement relates ceases to be perfected. If the security interest to which the statement relates was indicated on the certificate of title, the office must create a new certificate and deliver the new certificate or a record evidencing an electronic certificate. The office must maintain in its files the date and time of delivery to the office of the statement.
(d) A secured party that fails to comply with this section is liable for any loss that the secured party had reason to know might result from its failure to comply and which could not reasonably have been prevented and for the cost of an application for a certificate of title under 33 CFR 187.307 or 187.322.
(a) On voluntary transfer of an ownership interest in a vessel covered by a certificate of title, the following rules apply:
(1) If the certificate is a written certificate of title and the transferor's interest is noted on the certificate, the transferor must promptly sign the certificate and deliver it to the transferee. If the transferor does not have possession of the certificate, the person in possession of the certificate has a duty to facilitate the transferor's compliance with this paragraph. A secured party does not have a duty to facilitate the transferor's compliance with this paragraph if the proposed transfer is prohibited by the security agreement.
(2) If the certificate of title is an electronic certificate of title, the transferor must promptly sign and deliver to the transferee a record evidencing the transfer of ownership to the transferee.
(3) The transferee has a right enforceable by specific performance to require the transferor comply with paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
(b) The creation of a certificate of title identifying the transferee as owner of record satisfies paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) A failure to comply with paragraph (a) of this section or to apply for a new certificate of title does not render a transfer of ownership of a vessel ineffective between the parties. Except as otherwise provided in 33 CFR 187.318, 187.319, 187.323(a), or 187.324, a transfer of ownership without compliance with paragraph (a) of this section is not effective against another person claiming an interest in the vessel.
(d) A transferor that complies with paragraph (a) of this section is not liable as owner of the vessel for an event occurring after the transfer, regardless of whether the transferee applies for a new certificate of title.
Except as otherwise provided as prescribed by State law related to security interests in goods, a certificate of title or other record required or authorized by this subpart is effective even if it contains incorrect information or does not contain required information.
(a) In this section, “secured party's transfer statement” means a record signed by the secured party of record stating—
(1) That there has been a default on an obligation secured by the vessel;
(2) The secured party of record is exercising or has exercised post-default remedies with respect to the vessel;
(3) By reason of the exercise, the secured party of record has the right to
(4) The name and last known mailing address of the owner of record and the secured party of record;
(5) The name of the transferee;
(6) Other information required by 33 CFR 187.307(b); and
(7) One of the following:
(i) The certificate of title is an electronic certificate;
(ii) The secured party does not have possession of the written certificate of title created in the name of the owner of record; or
(iii) The secured party is delivering the written certificate of title to the office with the secured party's transfer statement.
(b) Unless the office rejects a secured party's transfer statement for a reason stated in 33 CFR 187.308(c), not later than 20 days after delivery to the office of the statement and payment of fees and taxes payable under State law in connection with the statement or the acquisition or use of the vessel, the office must—
(1) Accept the statement;
(2) Amend the files of the office to reflect the transfer; and
(3) If the name of the owner whose ownership interest is being transferred is indicated on the certificate of title—
(i) Cancel the certificate even if the certificate has not been delivered to the office;
(ii) Create a new certificate indicating the transferee as owner; and
(iii) Deliver the new certificate or a record evidencing an electronic certificate.
(c) An application under paragraph (a) of this section or the creation of a certificate of title under paragraph (b) of this section is not by itself a disposition of the vessel and does not by itself relieve the secured party of its duties under State law.
(a) In this section—
(1) “By operation of law” means pursuant to a law or judicial order affecting ownership of a vessel—
(i) Because of death, divorce or other family law proceeding, merger, consolidation, dissolution, or bankruptcy;
(ii) Through the exercise of the rights of a lien creditor or a person having a lien created by statute or rule of law; or
(iii) Through other legal process.
(2) “Transfer-by-law statement” means a record signed by a transferee stating that by operation of law the transferee has acquired or has the right to acquire an ownership interest in a vessel.
(b) A transfer-by-law statement must contain—
(1) The name and last known mailing address of the owner of record and the transferee and the other information required by 33 CFR 187.307(b);
(2) Documentation sufficient to establish the transferee's ownership interest or right to acquire the ownership interest;
(3) A statement that—
(i) The certificate of title is an electronic certificate of title;
(ii) The transferee does not have possession of the written certificate of title created in the name of the owner of record; or
(iii) The transferee is delivering the written certificate to the office with the transfer-by-law statement; and
(4) Except for a transfer described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, evidence that notification of the transfer and the intent to file the transfer-by-law statement has been sent to all persons indicated in the files of the office as having an interest, including a security interest, in the vessel.
(c) Unless the office rejects a transfer-by-law statement for a reason stated in 33 CFR 187.308(c) or because the statement does not include documentation satisfactory to the office as to the transferee's ownership interest or right to acquire the ownership interest, not later than 20 days after delivery to the office of the statement and payment of fees and taxes payable under State law in connection with the statement or with the acquisition or use of the vessel, the office must—
(1) Accept the statement;
(2) Amend the files of the office to reflect the transfer; and
(3) If the name of the owner whose ownership interest is being transferred is indicated on the certificate of title—
(i) Cancel the certificate even if the certificate has not been delivered to the office;
(ii) Create a new certificate indicating the transferee as owner;
(iii) Indicate on the new certificate any security interest indicated on the canceled certificate, unless a court order provides otherwise; and
(iv) Deliver the new certificate or a record evidencing an electronic certificate.
(d) This section does not apply to a transfer of an interest in a vessel by a secured party as prescribed by State law related to security interests in goods.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in 33 CFR 187.319 and 187.320, if the office receives, unaccompanied by a signed certificate of title, an application for a new certificate that includes an indication of a transfer of ownership or a termination statement, the office may create a new certificate under this section only if—
(1) All other requirements under 33 CFR 187.307 and 187.308 are met;
(2) The applicant provides an affidavit stating facts showing that the applicant is entitled to a transfer of ownership or termination statement;
(3) The applicant provides the office with satisfactory evidence that notification of the application has been sent to the owner of record and all persons indicated in the files of the office as having an interest, including a security interest, in the vessel, at least 45 days have passed since the notification was sent, and the office has not received an objection from any of those persons; and
(4) The applicant submits any other information required by the office as evidence of the applicant's ownership or right to terminate the security interest, and the office has no credible information indicating theft, fraud, or an undisclosed or unsatisfied security interest, lien, or other claim to an interest in the vessel.
(b) The office may indicate in a certificate of title created under paragraph (a) of this section that the certificate was created without submission of a signed certificate or termination statement. Unless credible information indicating theft, fraud, or an undisclosed or unsatisfied security interest, lien, or other claim to an interest in the vessel is delivered to the office not later than 1 year after creation of the certificate, on request in a form and manner required by the office, the office must remove the indication from the certificate.
(a) If a written certificate of title is lost, stolen, mutilated, destroyed, or otherwise becomes unavailable or illegible, the secured party of record or, if no secured party is indicated in the files of the office, the owner of record may apply for and, by furnishing information satisfactory to the office, obtain a replacement certificate in the name of the owner of record.
(b) An applicant for a replacement certificate of title must sign the application, and, except as otherwise permitted by the office, the application must comply with 33 CFR 187.307. The application must include the existing certificate unless the certificate is lost, stolen, mutilated, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable.
(c) A replacement certificate of title created by the office must comply with 33 CFR 187.309 and indicate on the face of the certificate that it is a replacement certificate.
(d) If a person receiving a replacement certificate of title subsequently obtains possession of the original written certificate, the person must promptly destroy the original certificate of title.
(a) A buyer in ordinary course of business has the protections afforded by State law even if an existing certificate of title was not signed and delivered to the buyer or a new certificate listing the buyer as owner of record was not created.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in 33 CFR 187.317 and 187.324, the rights of a purchaser of a vessel who is not a buyer in ordinary course of business or a lien creditor are governed by State law.
(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, the effect of perfection and nonperfection of a security interest and the priority of a perfected or unperfected security interest with respect to the rights of a purchaser or creditor, including a lien creditor, is governed by State law.
(b) If, while a security interest in a vessel is perfected by any method under this subpart, the office creates a certificate of title that does not indicate that the vessel is subject to the security interest or contain a statement that it may be subject to security interests not indicated on the certificate—
(1) A buyer of the vessel, other than a person in the business of selling or leasing vessels of that kind, takes free of the security interest if the buyer, acting in good faith and without knowledge of the security interest, gives value and receives possession of the vessel; and
(2) The security interest is subordinate to a conflicting security interest in the vessel that is perfected under 33 CFR 187.315 after creation of the certificate and without the conflicting secured party's knowledge of the security interest.
(a) The office must retain the evidence used to establish the accuracy of the information in its files relating to the current ownership of a vessel and the information on the certificate of title.
(b) The office must retain in its files all information regarding a security interest in a vessel for at least 10 years after the office receives a termination statement regarding the security interest. The information must be accessible by the hull identification number (HIN) for the vessel and any other methods provided by the office.
(c) If a person submits a record to the office, or submits information that is accepted by the office, and requests an acknowledgment of the filing or submission, the office must send to the person an acknowledgment showing the HIN of the vessel to which the record or submission relates, the information in the filed record or submission, and the date and time the record was received or the submission accepted. A request under this section must contain the HIN and be delivered by means authorized by the office.
(d) The office must send or otherwise make available in a record the following information to any person that requests it and pays the applicable fee:
(1) Whether the files of the office indicate, as of a date and time specified by the office, but not a date earlier than 3 days before the office received the request, any certificate of title, security interest, termination statement, or title brand that relates to a vessel—
(i) Identified by a HIN designated in the request;
(ii) Identified by a vessel number designated in the request; or
(iii) Owned by a person designated in the request.
(2) With respect to the vessel—
(i) The name and address of any owner as indicated in the files of the office or on the certificate of title;
(ii) The name and address of any secured party as indicated in the files of the office or on the certificate, and the effective date of the information; and
(iii) A copy of any termination statement indicated in the files of the office and the effective date of the termination statement.
(3) With respect to the vessel, a copy of any certificate of origin, secured party transfer statement, transfer-by-law statement under 33 CFR 187.320, and other evidence of previous or current transfers of ownership.
(e) In responding to a request under this section, the office may provide the requested information in any medium. On request, the office must send the requested information in a record that is in keeping with State rules of evidence.