Federal Independent Agencies
Federal Independent Agencies
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from federal independent agencies.
Featured Stories
USAID Acting Spokesperson Jhunjhunwala Issues Statement on Deputy Administrator Glick's Meetings
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 -- The U.S. Agency for International Development issued the following statement by acting spokesperson Pooja Jhunjhunwala on Deputy Administrator Bonnie Glick's meetings during the annual meetings of the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund:"United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Deputy Administrator Bonnie Glick participated in multiple events and bilateral meetings with government leaders during the Annual Meetings of the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund (IMF) from October 15 to October 18, 2019.
"On October 15, Deputy Administrator ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 -- The U.S. Agency for International Development issued the following statement by acting spokesperson Pooja Jhunjhunwala on Deputy Administrator Bonnie Glick's meetings during the annual meetings of the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund: "United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Deputy Administrator Bonnie Glick participated in multiple events and bilateral meetings with government leaders during the Annual Meetings of the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund (IMF) from October 15 to October 18, 2019. "On October 15, Deputy AdministratorGlick provided remarks at a roundtable event hosted by the World Bank with faith-based organizations, where she shared how USAID is increasing its partnerships with faith-based groups to build social and economic inclusion and advance sustainable country level outcomes, especially in fragile states.
"On October 16, Deputy Administrator Glick met with the Minister of Planning and International Cooperation (MOPIC) and State Minister for Economic Affairs of Jordan, Dr. Mohammed Al-Ississ, to discuss Jordan's Journey to Self-Reliance and USAID's ongoing role in providing development assistance to the Kingdom. Topics discussed: energy generation including joint generation with Israel and solar power generation; education materials in Jordan.
"On October 17, Deputy Administrator Glick met with the Deputy Secretary for the Global Cooperation, Development and Partnerships Group, in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) of Australia, Ms. Clare Walsh. The two discussed USAID's increasing presence and opportunities for ongoing collaboration in the Indo-Pacific region. Deputy Administrator Glick then participated in a roundtable meeting with Ministers of Finance and senior-level representatives from Pacific Island nations, in which she discussed USAID's increasing development assistance in areas such as environmental resiliency and economic growth.
"On October 18, Deputy Administrator Glick met with the United Kingdom's Secretary of State for International Development, Alok Sharma, and spoke about common development priorities. Following that meeting, Deputy Administrator Glick held a meeting with the Minister for Development Cooperation of Denmark, Rasmus Prehn, and discussed continued cooperation and investment in youth programming, education in humanitarian contexts, and private-sector engagement.
"Deputy Administrator Glick then met with the Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade of Finland, Minister Ville Skinnari, and explored areas for possible collaboration on advancing women's economic empowerment in support of the Women's Global Development Prosperity (W-GDP) initiative. Deputy Administrator Glick later met with State Secretary for International Development of Sweden, Per Olsson Fridh, and spoke about mutual efforts to assist with the Venezuela crisis, Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and commitment to continue cooperation in science, technology, innovation and partnerships (STIP). Finally, the Deputy Administrator met with the Executive Director of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), Henrietta Fore, and discussed areas of ongoing cooperation between USAID and UNICEF."
Mark Chambers Honored With Director's Award at 20th National Design Awards Gala
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 -- The Smithsonian Institution issued the following news release:* * *
- New Climate Action Award Announced for 2020
* * *
Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum held its 20th annual National Design Awards Gala in New York City last evening, honoring design excellence and innovation in 12 categories. The Director's Award, which was revealed live, was presented to Mark Chambers, director of sustainability for the City of New York. This year's gala included the announcement of the Climate Action Award, a new category beginning in 2020, which will recognize a design project ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 -- The Smithsonian Institution issued the following news release: * * * - New Climate Action Award Announced for 2020 * * * Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum held its 20th annual National Design Awards Gala in New York City last evening, honoring design excellence and innovation in 12 categories. The Director's Award, which was revealed live, was presented to Mark Chambers, director of sustainability for the City of New York. This year's gala included the announcement of the Climate Action Award, a new category beginning in 2020, which will recognize a design projectfor its significant contributions to addressing the global climate crisis.
The evening honored all of the 2019 National Design Award winners: Susan Kare, Lifetime Achievement; Patricia Moore, Design Mind; MIT D-Lab, Corporate & Institutional Achievement; Thomas Phifer, Architecture Design; Tobias Frere-Jones, Communication Design; Derek Lam, Fashion Design; Ivan Poupyrev, Interaction Design; IwamotoScott Architecture, Interior Design; SCAPE, Landscape Architecture; Tinker Hatfield, Product Design; and Open Style Lab, Emerging Designer. The recipients of these juried National Design Awards were previously announced.
Caroline Baumann, director of Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum, presented the Director's Award to Chambers. As director of sustainability for the City of New York, Chambers leads the design and development of policies and programs to enable a resilient, zero-carbon built environment and a fair, healthy future for all 8.6 million residents of the largest city in the United States. This future vision is laid out in the citywide strategic plan, OneNYC 2050. In 2019, Chambers spearheaded the world's first mandated cap on greenhouse gas emissions from large buildings, which will usher in an era of high performance design throughout New York City to fight climate change. Previously, Chambers served as the Director of Sustainability and Energy for Washington, D.C., where he helped execute Washington's Sustainable DC strategic plan and negotiated the nation's largest municipal wind power purchase agreement at the time.
"Mark is paving the path toward a greener future by creating essential awareness of both the footprint we have as a big city, and the impact New York City can have as a leader and a champion of a vibrant and inclusive future for the planet," Baumann said. "His life work is perfectly aligned with Cooper Hewitt's core belief that design has the power to address humanity's challenges, from the everyday to the monumental. I am absolutely delighted to honor Mark with this year's Director's Award."
Chambers joins a distinguished group of previous Director's Award winners, including Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation; Susan S. Szenasy, director of design innovation, former publisher and editor in chief of Metropolis (2017); Make It Right, a nonprofit organization, founded by Brad Pitt in 2007, that builds homes, buildings and communities for people in need (2016); and Jack Lenor Larsen, an internationally renowned textile designer, author and collector (2015).
National Design Awards is made possible by generous support from Target.
Additional support is provided by Design Within Reach, Facebook and Bloomberg Philanthropies.
National Design Award trophies are created by The Corning Museum of Glass.
ndagallery.cooperhewitt.org is powered by Behance, part of Adobe Inc.
About the National Design Awards
Launched at the White House in 2000 as an official project of the White House Millennium Council, the annual awards recognize design in various disciplines as a vital humanistic tool in shaping the world.
The gala serves as the centerpiece of National Design Week, which features a series of programs for all audiences led by award winners, including hands-on workshops, lighting design talks, in-gallery experiences, a design career fair and educator open house. In celebration of the 20th anniversary of the National Design Awards, Target will offer free admission to visitors of Cooper Hewitt through Oct. 19, making design accessible to all.
* * *
About Cooper Hewitt
Cooper Hewitt is America's design museum. Inclusive, innovative and experimental, the museum's dynamic exhibitions, education programs, master's program, publications and online resources inspire, educate and empower people through design. An integral part of the Smithsonian Institution--the world's largest museum, education and research complex--Cooper Hewitt is located on New York City's Museum Mile in the historic, landmark Carnegie Mansion. Steward of one of the world's most diverse and comprehensive design collections--over 210,000 objects that range from an ancient Egyptian faience cup dating to about 1100 BC to contemporary 3-D-printed objects and digital code--Cooper Hewitt welcomes everyone to discover the importance of design and its power to change the world. Cooper Hewitt knits digital into experiences to enhance ideas, extend reach beyond museum walls and enable greater access, personalization, experimentation and connection. The museum is fully accessible.
For more information, visit http://www.cooperhewitt.org or follow @cooperhewitt on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory: NASA Map Reveals a New Landslide Risk Factor
PASADENA, California, Oct. 18 -- NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory issued the following news:In the deadly 2018 earthquake in the Indonesian city of Palu, intense shaking changed solid ground into a landslide of flowing mud, multiplying the death toll and economic impact. A new paper shows that this disastrous effect was triggered by a previously unknown risk factor: flooding rice fields for farming.
Soil liquefaction, which causes this kind of landslide, occurs when the shaking from a large earthquake rips through moist, loose soil, overpowering the friction that normally holds dirt particles ... Show Full Article PASADENA, California, Oct. 18 -- NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory issued the following news: In the deadly 2018 earthquake in the Indonesian city of Palu, intense shaking changed solid ground into a landslide of flowing mud, multiplying the death toll and economic impact. A new paper shows that this disastrous effect was triggered by a previously unknown risk factor: flooding rice fields for farming. Soil liquefaction, which causes this kind of landslide, occurs when the shaking from a large earthquake rips through moist, loose soil, overpowering the friction that normally holds dirt particlestogether. The soil loses its structural integrity and begins to flow like a liquid. Buildings fall as their support washes away. Heavy objects like cars sink into the muck, while buried water and sewer pipes rise to the surface.
In Palu, although early reporting blamed most of the estimated 2,000 fatalities on a tsunami, surveys soon showed that soil-liquefaction landslides caused at least as much damage as the ocean waves did. That puzzled researchers. Soil liquefaction usually occurs in flat landscapes with wet, sandy or silty ground, such as coastal plains. Researchers had thought flat terrain was a prerequisite because the water table - the distance below ground where the soil becomes saturated with water - must be shallow, and that's rare on a hillside. Palu has sandy soil, but it's in a gently sloping valley that appeared to pose little risk.
They were startled to notice that all the landslides originated along a distinct line. When they took a closer look, they saw that the line was an aqueduct. "So we started studying why the aqueduct is clearly defining the boundary between land sliding and no sliding," Yun said.
The Gumbasa Aqueduct was completed in 1913 to reduce the risk of famine by providing a consistent water supply for local farmers. Only land downhill from the aqueduct is irrigated; water is not pumped uphill. Farmers just below the aqueduct practice wet rice cultivation, in which fields are flooded at one point in the growing cycle. This predominant method of rice farming in tropical Asia raises the water table over time to just below the ground surface. Farther downhill, farmers grow coconut palms, which require less irrigation and don't raise the water table as much.
Damage maps revealed widespread liquefaction below the aqueduct. Multiple slides carried some 6 square miles (16 square kilometers) of land far downhill - in some places farther than 49 feet (15 meters). The slides were slowed or halted by the coconut palm plantations. No liquefaction was identified uphill of the aqueduct.
The conclusion is clear, Bradley said: "If there hadn't been intensive irrigation, the landslides wouldn't have happened." On the positive side, he added, "This is a human-caused hazard, and it can have a human solution. We can't mitigate the hazard of ground shaking on Palu, but the agricultural practices can be updated based on this new understanding."
Trees played a critical role in stopping the slides, and the researchers suggest that planting more trees - perhaps interspersed with rice fields - in areas that are intensively irrigated might reduce the risk of soil liquefaction.
Bradley noted that Palu is not the only place in the world where people are growing heavily irrigated crops on wet, sandy slopes. "If an engineer had gone to Palu and evaluated the system from first principles, they would likely have been able to identify this risk," he said. "I hope this study is an impetus for people to go and study these other places."
A paper on the research, titled "Wet rice cultivation was the primary cause of the earthquake-triggered Palu landslides," was published in Nature Geoscience. Bradley is the lead author.
Esprit Smith, 818/354-4269, esprit.smith@jpl.nasa.gov
Jet Propulsion Laboratory: Mars 2020 Unwrapped and Ready for Testing
PASADENA, California, Oct. 18 -- NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory issued the following news:In this time-lapse video, taken on Oct. 4, 2019, at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, bunny-suited engineers remove the inner layer of protective antistatic foil on the Mars 2020 rover after the vehicle was relocated from JPL's Spacecraft Assembly Facility to the Simulator Building for testing.
"The Mars 2020 rover will be collecting samples for future return to Earth, so it must meet extraordinary cleanliness measures to avoid the possibility of contaminating Martian samples with ... Show Full Article PASADENA, California, Oct. 18 -- NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory issued the following news: In this time-lapse video, taken on Oct. 4, 2019, at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, bunny-suited engineers remove the inner layer of protective antistatic foil on the Mars 2020 rover after the vehicle was relocated from JPL's Spacecraft Assembly Facility to the Simulator Building for testing. "The Mars 2020 rover will be collecting samples for future return to Earth, so it must meet extraordinary cleanliness measures to avoid the possibility of contaminating Martian samples withterrestrial contaminants," said Paul Boeder, contamination control lead for Mars 2020 at JPL. "To ensure we maintain cleanliness at all times, we need to keep things clean not only during assembly and testing, but also during the moves between buildings for these activities."
After removing the first layer of antistatic foil (just prior this time-lapse), the teams used 70% isopropyl alcohol to meticulously wipe down the remaining layer, seen here, along with the trailer carrying the rover. Later that day, the rover was moved into the larger main room of the Simulator Building. In the coming weeks, the rover will enter a massive vacuum chamber for surface thermal testing - a weeklong evaluation of how its instruments, systems and subsystems operate in the frigid, near-vacuum environment it will face on Mars.
JPL is building and will manage operations of the Mars 2020 rover for NASA. The rover will launch on a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket in July 2020 from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. NASA's Launch Services Program, based at the agency's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, is responsible for launch management.
When the rover lands at Jezero Crater on Feb. 18, 2021, it will be the first spacecraft in the history of planetary exploration with the ability to accurately retarget its point of touchdown during the landing sequence.
Charged with returning astronauts to the Moon by 2024, NASA's Artemis lunar exploration plans will establish a sustained human presence on and around the Moon by 2028. We will use what we learn on the Moon to prepare to send astronauts to Mars.
Interested K-12 students in U.S. public, private and home schools can enter the Mars 2020 Name the Rover essay contest. One grand prize winner will name the rover.
For more information about the name contest, go to:
https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/participate/name-the-rover/
For more information about the mission, go to:
https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/
Fed Vice Chair Clarida Issues Speech at CFA Institute Conference
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Oct. 18 -- The Federal Reserve issued the following speech by Vice Chair Richard H. Clarida at a conference sponsored by the CFA Institute and the CFA Society of Boston entitled "Late Cycle Investing: Opportunity and Risk":Before we begin our conversation, I would like to share a few thoughts about the outlook for the U.S. economy and monetary policy./1
"The U.S. economy is in a good place, and the baseline outlook is favorable. The median expectation from Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) participants' most recent Summary of Economic Projections is for GDP growth to ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Oct. 18 -- The Federal Reserve issued the following speech by Vice Chair Richard H. Clarida at a conference sponsored by the CFA Institute and the CFA Society of Boston entitled "Late Cycle Investing: Opportunity and Risk": Before we begin our conversation, I would like to share a few thoughts about the outlook for the U.S. economy and monetary policy./1 "The U.S. economy is in a good place, and the baseline outlook is favorable. The median expectation from Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) participants' most recent Summary of Economic Projections is for GDP growth tobe around 2 percent in 2019, for growth to continue near this pace next year, and for personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation to rise gradually to our symmetric 2 percent objective./2 The unemployment rate, at 3.5 percent, is at a half-century low, and wages are rising broadly in line with productivity growth and underlying inflation. There is no evidence to date that a strong labor market is putting excessive cost-push pressure on price inflation.
"But despite this favorable baseline outlook, the U.S. economy confronts some evident risks in this the 11th year of economic expansion. Business fixed investment has slowed notably since last year, exports are contracting on a year-over-year basis, and indicators of manufacturing activity are weakening. Global growth estimates continue to be marked down, and global disinflationary pressures cloud the outlook for U.S. inflation.
"U.S. inflation remains muted. Over the 12 months through August, PCE inflation is running at 1.4 percent, and core PCE inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, is running at 1.8 percent.
"Turning now to monetary policy, at both its July and September meetings, the FOMC voted to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points./3 With these decisions, the current target range for the federal funds rate is 1.75 to 2 percent, which compares with the range of 2.25 to 2.5 percent that prevailed between December 2018 and July 2019. The Committee took these actions to provide a somewhat more accommodative policy in response to muted inflation pressures and the risks to the outlook I mentioned earlier.
"Looking ahead, monetary policy is not on a preset course, and the Committee will proceed on a meeting-by-meeting basis to assess the economic outlook as well as the risks to the outlook, and it will act as appropriate to sustain growth, a strong labor market, and a return of inflation to our symmetric 2 percent objective.
"Turning now to the framework under which the Federal Reserve operates in financial markets, in September of this year, shocks in the repurchase agreement (repo) market put upward pressure on money market rates, and these pressures spilled over into the federal funds market. In response to these developments, the Federal Reserve on September 17 initiated a program of repurchase operations to provide liquidity sufficient to keep the federal funds rate within the desired target range. These operations have been successful in achieving this goal.
"As the FOMC announced in January 2019, the Committee seeks to operate with a level of bank reserves that is sufficiently ample to ensure that control of the federal funds rate is achieved primarily by the setting of our administered rates and is not, over the longer term, reliant on frequent and large open market operations./4 In July, the FOMC concluded the program of balance sheet reduction in place since October 2017 and indicated then that, after a time, it would commence increasing its securities holdings to maintain reserves at a level consistent with an ample-reserves regime.
"The FOMC announced on October 11 that it would seek to maintain, over time, a level of bank reserves at or somewhat above the level that prevailed in early September, a level that we believe is sufficient to operate an ample-reserves regime./5 This week, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York began a program of purchasing Treasury bills in the secondary market. This program will continue at least into the second quarter of next year and is designed to achieve--and, over time, maintain--ample reserve balances at or above the level that prevailed in early September. In addition, the Federal Reserve will continue to conduct term and overnight repo operations at least through January to ensure that the supply of reserves remains ample even during periods of temporary, but pronounced, increases in our nonreserve liabilities, and to mitigate the risk that money market pressures adversely affect monetary policy implementation.
"It is important to note that the open market operations we have announced are technical, "Central Banking 101" operations and should not be conflated with the large-scale asset purchase programs that the Federal Reserve deployed after the financial crisis. In those programs, the Federal Reserve was seeking to ease financial conditions by lowering term premiums via its purchases of long-term Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities. By contrast, the program announced on October 11 will concentrate its purchases in Treasury bills. The technical measures we are undertaking do not represent a change in the stance of monetary policy, which we continue to implement by adjusting the target range for the federal funds rate.
"Finally, I would like to say a few words about the monetary policy framework review we are undertaking this year. This review of our monetary policy strategy, tools, and communications is the first of its kind for the Federal Reserve. Public engagement, unprecedented in scope for the Fed, is an important part of this effort. Through our Fed Listens events, we have been hearing a diverse range of perspectives not only from academic experts, but also from representatives of consumer, labor, business, community, and other groups. We will draw on these insights as we assess how best to achieve and maintain maximum employment and price stability in the most robust fashion possible. In July, we began discussing issues associated with the review at our FOMC meetings. We will continue reporting on our discussions in the meeting minutes and share our conclusions when we finish the review during the first half of next year./6
"Thank you very much for your attention."
* * *
1/ These remarks represent my own views, which do not necessarily represent those of the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. I am grateful to Brian Doyle of the Federal Reserve Board staff for his assistance in preparing this text. Return to text (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20191018a.htm#f1)
2/ The most recent Summary of Economic Projections is an addendum to the minutes of the September 2019 FOMC meeting. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2019), "Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee, September 17-18, 2019," press release, October 9. Return to text (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20191018a.htm#f2)
3/ See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2019), "Federal Reserve Issues FOMC Statement," (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20190731a.htm) press release, July 31; and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2019), (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20191009a.htm) "Federal Reserve Issues FOMC Statement," (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20190918a.htm) press release, September 18. Return to text (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20191018a.htm#f3)
4/ See the Statement Regarding Monetary Policy Implementation and Balance Sheet Normalization (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20190130c.htm), which is available on the Board's website. Return to text (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20191018a.htm#f4)
5/ See the Statement Regarding Monetary Policy Implementation (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20191011a.htm), which can be found on the Board's website. Return to text (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20191018a.htm#f5)
6/ Information about the review and the events associated with it are available on the Board's website (https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/review-of-monetary-policy-strategy-tools-and-communications.htm). Return to text (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20191018a.htm#f6)
FDIC and Fed Request Information on Use and Impact of CAMELS Ratings
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 -- The Federal Reserve issued the following news release:In keeping with ongoing initiatives to increase transparency and improve efficiency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Federal Reserve Board are inviting public comment on their use of the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System, also known as the CAMELS rating system.
The agencies seek comments on the consistency of ratings assigned under the CAMELS system. The agencies are also interested in comments concerning how they use CAMELS ratings in enforcement actions and in reviewing bank applications.
The ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 -- The Federal Reserve issued the following news release: In keeping with ongoing initiatives to increase transparency and improve efficiency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Federal Reserve Board are inviting public comment on their use of the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System, also known as the CAMELS rating system. The agencies seek comments on the consistency of ratings assigned under the CAMELS system. The agencies are also interested in comments concerning how they use CAMELS ratings in enforcement actions and in reviewing bank applications. Theagencies' outreach is on CAMELS ratings is consistent with their commitment to provide opportunities for public feedback on issues affecting supervised institutions.
Because comments will be made public, submitters should not include confidential rating and examination information. Comments will be accepted for 60 days after publication of the agencies' request for information in the Federal Register.
Attachment (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20191018a1.pdf)
Court of International Trade Issues Opinion in CSC Sugar Case
NEW YORK, Oct. 18 -- The U.S. Court of International Trade issued the following slip opinion (Slip Op. 19-132):CSC SUGAR LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant.
Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge
Court No. 17-00215
OPINION
[Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record]
Jeffrey S. Neeley and Michael Klebanov, Husch Blackwell, LLP, of Washington, DC for Plaintiff CSC Sugar LLC.
Alexander O. Canizares, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC for Defendant United States. With him on the brief were Joseph H. ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Oct. 18 -- The U.S. Court of International Trade issued the following slip opinion (Slip Op. 19-132): CSC SUGAR LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge Court No. 17-00215 OPINION [Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record] Jeffrey S. Neeley and Michael Klebanov, Husch Blackwell, LLP, of Washington, DC for Plaintiff CSC Sugar LLC. Alexander O. Canizares, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC for Defendant United States. With him on the brief were Joseph H.Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Brandon Custard, Attorney, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance of Washington, DC.
Robert C. Cassidy, Jr., Charles S. Levy, James R. Cannon, Jr., and Jonathan M. Zielinski, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of Washington, DC for Defendant-Intervenors the American Sugar Coalition, American Sugar Cane League, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, American Sugar Refining, Inc., Florida Sugar Cane League, Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc., Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, and the United States Beet Sugar Association.
Irwin P. Altschuler, Rosa S. Jeong, and Daniel E. Parga, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, of Washington, DC for Defendant-Intervenor Camara Nacional de Las Industrias Azucarera y Alcoholera.
Gregory J. Spak, Kristina Zissis, and Ron Kendler, White and Case LLP, of Washington, DC for Defendant-Intervenor Imperial Sugar Company.
Gordon, Judge: This action involves a challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce's ("Commerce") determination to amend the suspension agreement regarding the antidumping duty ("AD") investigation on sugar from Mexico. See Sugar from Mexico, 82 Fed. Reg. 31,945, PD 114/1 (Dep't of Commerce July 11, 2017) (amendment to AD Suspension Agreement) ("AD Amendment")./2
Before the court is the motion of Plaintiff CSC Sugar LLC ("Plaintiff" or "CSC Sugar") for judgment on the agency record under USCIT Rule 56.2. See Pl.'s Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 88/3 ("Pl.'s Mot."); see also Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 100 ("Def.'s Resp."); Def.-Intervenor Camara Nacional de Las Industrias Azucarera y Alcoholera Resp. Opp. Pl.'s Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 93 ("Camara Resp."); Def.-Intervenors American Sugar Coalition, American Sugar Cane League, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, American Sugar Refining, Inc., Florida Sugar Cane League, Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc., Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, and the United States Beet Sugar Association's Resp. Opp. Pl.'s Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 95 ("ASC Resp."); Pl.'s Reply in Supp. Of Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 104 ("Pl.'s Reply"). The court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Sec. 516A(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iv),/4 and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1581(1)(c) (2012). For the reasons set forth below, the court grants Plaintiff's motion.
I. Background
In 2014, after the American Sugar Coalition and its members (collectively, "ASC"), filed a petition with Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC"), the agencies conducted an investigation as to whether imports of sugar from Mexico were being sold at less than fair value, and whether such imports were injurious to the U.S. industry. After Commerce issued a preliminary determination that sugar from Mexico was being sold, or was likely to be sold, into the United States at less than fair value, Commerce and the Government of Mexico negotiated and signed a suspension agreement. See Sugar From Mexico: Suspension of Antidumping Investigation, 79 Fed. Reg. 78,039 (Dep't of Commerce Dec. 29, 2014) ("AD Agreement").
In 2017, Commerce and the Government of Mexico negotiated amendments to the suspension agreement. See AD Amendment. Among other changes, this amendment altered the definition of "refined sugar" in the AD Agreement. See id. (amending definition of "refined sugar" to consist of sugar with a polarity 99.2 degrees and above, instead of 99.5 degrees polarity and above). In response, CSC Sugar commenced this action. See Compl., ECF No. 11. After Commerce filed the administrative record pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1516a(b)(2)(A)(i) and USCIT Rule 73.2(a), CSC Sugar contended that Commerce did not meet its obligation to file a complete administrative record. See Pl.'s Mot. to Complete Admin. R., ECF Nos. 32 & 33. Specifically, CSC Sugar argued that Commerce failed to memorialize and include in the record ex parte communications between Commerce officials and interested parties (including the domestic sugar industry and representatives of Mexico) as required by 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677f(a)(3). Id. The court agreed and ordered Commerce to supplement the administrative record with any ex parte meetings about the AD Amendment. See CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, 42 CIT ___, ___, 317 F. Supp. 3d 1334, 1345 (2018) ("CSC Sugar I"). Commerce then supplemented the administrative record with two logs. The first, a "Consultations Log," documented the ex parte meetings that were held or may have been held in relation to the AD Agreement Amendment. See Consultations Log, ECF No. 62-1. The second was an "Email Log" that included email correspondence, with attached documents, between interested parties and Commerce. See Email Log, ECF No. 62-2. CSC Sugar subsequently filed a motion for judgment on the agency record under USCIT Rule 56.2 arguing that Commerce's failure during the suspension amendment negotiations to maintain contemporaneous ex parte meeting memoranda (pursuant to Sec. 1677f(a)(3)) could not be adequately remedied by the Government's belated and incomplete supplementation of the record. See Pl.'s Mot. CSC Sugar maintains that the only adequate remedy to address Commerce's willful disregard of its statutory obligations is to vacate the AD Amendment. Id. at 23-29.
II. Standard of Review
The court sustains Commerce's "determinations, findings, or conclusions" unless they are "unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 19 U.S.C Sec. 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). More specifically, when reviewing agency determinations, findings or conclusions for substantial evidence, the court assesses whether the agency action is reasonable given the record as a whole. Nippon Steel Corp v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence has been described as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Substantial evidence has also been described as "something less than the weight of evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's findings from being supported by substantial evidence." Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). Fundamentally, though, "substantial evidence" is best understood as a word formula connoting a reasonableness review. 3 Charles H. Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and Practice Sec. 9.24[1] (3d ed. 2019). Therefore, when addressing a substantial evidence issue raised by a party, the court analyzes whether the challenged agency action "was reasonable given the circumstances presented by the whole record." 8A West's Fed. Forms, National Courts Sec. 3.6 (5th ed. 2019).
The court does not set aside agency action for procedural errors unless the error is prejudicial to the party seeking to have the action set aside. See Sea-Land Serv. Inc., v. United States, 14 CIT 253, 257, 735 F. Supp 1059, 1063 (1990)), aff'd and adopted, 923 F.2d 838 (Fed. Cir. 1991). However, in circumstances where the administrative record "looks complete on its face and appears to support the decision of the agency but there is a subsequent showing of impropriety in the process, that impropriety creates an appearance of irregularity which the agency must then show to be harmless." See Portland Audubon Soc. v. Endangered Species Comm., 984 F.2d 1534, 1548 (9th Cir. 1993) (addressing application of the Administrative Procedure Act to executive agency's failure to document prohibited ex parte communications).
III. Discussion
In CSC Sugar I, the court held that 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1516a(b)(2)(A)(i) unambiguously required that "all information presented to or obtained by" Commerce in the course of reaching its AD Amendment determination be provided to the court in order to review CSC Sugar's challenge to that determination. See 42 CIT at ___, 317 F. Supp. 3d at 1340. The court therefore ordered the Government to comply with Sec.Sec. 1516a(b)(2) and 1677f(a)(3) and to supplement the record with the memoranda summarizing "any ex parte meetings about the AD Amendment." Id. 42 CIT at ___, 317 F. Supp. 3d at 1345.
Commerce then supplemented the administrative record with the Consultations and Email Logs that attempted to provide detail as to Commerce's ex parte communications with interested parties during the AD Amendment negotiations. The question the court must now address is whether CSC Sugar is entitled to have the AD Amendment vacated given that Commerce did not and cannot provide
contemporaneous memoranda of its ex parte meetings during the negotiation of the AD Amendment as required under Sec. 1677f(a)(3). Plaintiff contends that "[b]ecause the relevant statutes and regulation are 'intended to provide important procedural benefits,' the court must vacate the [AD Amendment] unless Commerce shows its error was harmless." See Pl.'s Mot. at 23-25 (relying on Guangdong Chemicals Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 30 CIT 85, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1300 (2006), and Portland Audubon Soc. v. Endangered Species Comm., 984 F.2d 1534 (9th Cir. 1993)). CSC Sugar further argues that Commerce's violations of Sec.Sec. 1516a(b)(2)(A)(i) and 1677f(a)(3), as well as 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.104, constituted prejudicial error as Commerce's recordkeeping failures "foreclosed any opportunity [for CSC Sugar] to inspect or comment on those memoranda." Id. at 27.
The Government admits that the record in this matter remains incomplete because "preparing ex parte memoranda documenting meetings a year or two after the fact would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible." See Def.'s Resp. at 8. Nevertheless, the Government maintains that the record as amended presents a "fulsome review of Commerce's negotiation of the AD Amendment." See id. The Government therefore contends that "the amended record allows for effective judicial review of the merits of Commerce's determination and complies with 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677f(a)(3)." Id. at 10. The Government further argues that Plaintiff misstates the proper burden of proof. The Government maintains that even if the record as amended is not complete, CSC Sugar is not entitled to any further relief absent a demonstration of "substantial prejudice" resulting from Commerce's failure to adhere to the recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 1677f(a)(3). See Def.'s Resp. at 10-28 (citing Suntec Indus. Co. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Suntec III") and PAM, S.p.A. v. United States, 463 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677f does not specify a particular remedy for the violation of its provisions. The parties agree that Commerce's failure to document its ex parte meetings during the negotiation of the AD Amendment should be viewed as a procedural failure on the part of the agency. See Pl.'s Mot. at 23 ("Separately and together, Sec. 1516a(b)(2)(A)(i), Sec. 1677f(a)(3), and 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.104 are intended to provide important procedural benefits." (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)); Def.'s Resp. at 3-7 (emphasizing that Plaintiff's Rule 56.2 motion hinges on allegations of "procedural error"). However, the parties disagree as to the proper legal framework that should govern the court's analysis of what remedy, if any, Plaintiff may be entitled to obtain for Commerce's recordkeeping failure. It is for the court to determine the consequence, if any, of an agency's procedural errors by applying principles of "harmless error" or the "rule of prejudicial error." See Intercargo Ins. Co. v. United States, 83 F.3d 391, 394 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("It is well settled that principles of harmless error apply to the review of agency proceedings."); see also 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706 (judicial review of agency action is conducted with "due account ... of the rule of prejudicial error"). Whether an error is prejudicial or harmless depends on the facts of a given case. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 407-08 (2009) (finding that courts are to determine whether an agency error is harmless by "case-specific application of judgment, based upon examination of the record").
Defendant maintains that CSC Sugar has the burden of demonstrating that it suffered "substantial prejudice" from Commerce's recordkeeping errors pursuant to guidance from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Suntec III and PAM, S.p.A. v. United States. However, as Plaintiff rightfully points out, those decisions both concerned "the requirement to show substantial prejudice of a notice defect." See Suntec III, 857 F.3d at 1369 (emphasis added); see also Pl.'s Reply at 8-10, 19 (distinguishing the facts of the present action from the decisions on which Defendant relies that involve "technical failures" or defects of "mere 'notice or service requirements'"). This matter involves Commerce's failure to maintain a complete record as required by the statute and its own regulations, and the court agrees with Plaintiff that such issues involved important procedural benefits that go beyond mere technical notice defects. Instead, this matter is similar to circumstances addressed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Portland Audubon Soc. v. Endangered Species Comm., 984 F.2d 1534 (9th Cir. 1993). In Audubon, environmental group plaintiffs challenged an administrative decision of the Endangered Species Committee and argued that the committee had engaged in undocumented ex parte meetings and communications with the White House in reaching the contested determination. See Audubon, 984 F.2d at 1536-37. There, the Ninth Circuit held that the record must be supplemented and that plaintiffs were entitled to a remand of the contested decision to the committee for a hearing before an administrative law judge "to determine the nature, content, extent, source, and effect of any ex parte communications that may have transpired." Id. at 1549. As the court explained, If the record is not complete, then the requirement that the agency decision be supported by 'the record' becomes almost meaningless. Indeed, where the so-called 'record' looks complete on its face and appears to support the decision of the agency but there is a subsequent showing of impropriety in the process, that impropriety creates an appearance of irregularity which the agency must then show to be harmless. Id. at 1548 (internal citations omitted).
Although Defendant contends that CSC Sugar was not prejudiced because it "actively participated in the administrative proceeding," Defendant fails to address the fact that Commerce's complete failure to follow Sec. 1677f effectively prevented CSC Sugar from commenting on the ex parte materials and discussions Commerce engaged in during the AD Amendment negotiations. See Def.'s Resp. at 10-16. Similarly, Defendant maintains that CSC Sugar did not suffer substantial prejudice because CSC Sugar cannot demonstrate that Commerce's decision would have been different but for Commerce's failure to maintain and provide contemporaneous ex parte memoranda. See id. at 26-28. Defendant's argument requires the court to presume, without basis, that any response CSC Sugar may have had to other interested parties' ex parte communications with Commerce during the AD Amendment negotiations would have been meritless and futile. By violating Sec. 1677f(a)(3) when it failed to contemporaneously memorialize ex parte meetings, and by violating Sec. 1516a(b)(2)(A)(i) and 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.104 when it failed to maintain and provide a complete administrative record, Commerce foreclosed any opportunity for Plaintiff to inspect or comment on those memoranda. The court has previously explained why Commerce's failure to timely maintain ex parte memoranda during the administrative proceeding violates the statutory protections and purpose of Sec. 1677f(a)(3) and prejudices interested parties:
Whether or not information is in the record via the petition or otherwise, Commerce is not entitled to choose which covered ex parte meetings it will memorialize, based on its own identification of redundancies. Parties are entitled to know when and how information was conveyed; they should not have to rely on subtle judgments by Commerce officials or employees about whether factual information is important, is already in the record in some other form, or is even useful to the agency or to the parties. All Commerce was required to do was to have timely memoranda drafted and filed so that parties could review them at some useful point during the proceeding. Placing a few very summary memoranda on the record after all decision-making is complete is useless and disrespectful of the administrative process, as well as violative of the statute. By requiring that the memoranda be available for 'inspection,' the statute requires that the parties to the proceeding be able to inspect the memoranda so that they may comment on the factual data contained therein or ask for more detailed memoranda, if those placed on the record are not informative. See Wieland-Werke AG v. United States, 22 CIT 129, 134-35, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1207, 1212-13 (1998) (parties must be allowed to comment on information obtained by Commerce). See also 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677m(g) (requiring "opportunity to comment on the information obtained by the administrative authority"). Commerce's disregard as to timing does not serve procedural due process or the goal of transparency, as required by the statute. Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1158, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1373-74 (2000)./5 For these reasons, the court concludes (1) that Commerce's failure to follow the recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 1677f(a)(3) cannot be described as "harmless" and (2) that the agency's recordkeeping failure substantially prejudiced Plaintiff. Therefore, the AD Amendment must be vacated.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff's USCIT Rule 56.2 motion for judgment on the agency record. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Judge Leo M. Gordon
Dated: October 18, 2019
New York, New York
* * *
1/ "PD ___" refers to a document contained in the public administrative record, which is found in ECF Nos. 29-1, 62-72 unless otherwise noted. "CD ___" refers to a document contained in the confidential administrative record, which is found in ECF Nos. 29-2, 73, 74, 75, and 77 unless otherwise noted.
2/ CSC Sugar also filed a parallel action, Court No. 17-00214, challenging Commerce's amendment to the Countervailing Duty ("CVD") Suspension Agreement, which is addressed in this Court's decision, Slip Op. 19-131, also issued this date.
3/ All citations to parties' briefs and the agency record are to their confidential versions unless otherwise noted.
4/ Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to relevant provisions of Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2012 edition.
5/ The court in Nippon Steel Corp. ultimately concluded that Commerce's failure to memorialize the submission of information ex parte was "harmless" in the specific circumstances presented in that matter because the aggrieved respondent had prevailed on the relevant final determination. See Nippon Steel Corp., 24 CIT 1158, 118 F. Supp. 2d at 1374 & n.7 ("The court, however, will not vacate the final determination and subsequent order based on Commerce's error, as requested by NSC. It is likely that in this case the error that is obvious was harmless.... The final critical circumstances decision was in NSC's favor."). In this matter, the court cannot similarly conclude that Commerce's failure to timely maintain ex parte memoranda on the record pursuant to Sec. 1677f(a)(3) was harmless. Cf. Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 846 F.3d 1364, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that where an agency's procedural error affects the record and leaves "uncertainty" as to whether any prejudice occurred, court will refuse to find that error to be harmless).